Why the Nazis were smarter than you.

[Wayne Grabert]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Reference. (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm)

It's even easier than Goering claimed. You can also sell the common people on a wild and improbable story that unless you attack pre-emptively, the enemy will attack sometime in the future by giving weapons to a proxy whom he hates and who hates him.

Suckers!

By the way, when is Iraq going to get off its collective ass and use those WMD they were so eager to use against us?

[treborf]

Wayne, with respect, all that quote shows is how little Goering values human life. He seems to think that because people sometimes act without thinking, that it's perfectly moral to take advantage of that.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by treborf
Wayne, with respect, all that quote shows is how little Goering values human life. He seems to think that because people sometimes act without thinking, that it's perfectly moral to take advantage of that.
We're seeing the truth of his statements. My purpose is not applaud the Nazis, but to show how gullible people are. Even a bunch of flunky Nazis can manipulate them--and to war, no less! I know it's all in vain. They'll make the same mistake the next time. Pete Seeger asked, "when will they ever learn?" The answer is "never."

[c0rbin]

When the US starts mass executions of non-combatants, I would be willing to entertain comparisons to NAZI Germany.

Until then, find a better argument.

[Barkhorn1x]

This is just so trite and assinine. I won't waste anymore time on crafting a response, except to say;

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


and finally,

:rolleyes:

Barkhorn.

[Charles Livingston]

That statement could be applied to any war in human history, and any particular side to those wars. Have all combatants of all wars been immoral. For example, you could apply his statement to the allies in WWII. Were they not justified in fighting Hitler?

That analogy may not be perfect in that we kind of started this war (I mean that we were the first to fire in a major way, not that this war was only caused by our actions) and WWII was a bit more defensive, but the point is that you can apply this statement to any side of any war.

[My Final Spider]

I don't think this can be (accurately) applied to all wars. The first sentance is "Of course the people don't want war" and this is not always true. Look at the French at the start of the war of 1870, for just one example.

Sometimes wars are popular. This one isn't as popular as that one. I hope it turns out better.

[Charles Livingston]

Actually, if you look at the rest of the quote (which is not in the link given, but I remember from someones signature line long ago), when he refers to "the people dont want war" I think he is referring to it more generally, as in, hey no one wants to go fight to begin with, rather than 'it is wrong to attack such and such country for the reasons already presented by teh government'. This is even supported by the rest of the quote given, ie when he says the people can be 'dragged along' by basically saying hey we are under attack. (ie the war can be made more popular by propaganda) Thus, I disagree taht this statement is only intended to refer to wars that are unpopular with the general population. I think he just means it is easy to make the war popular. He means that 'why would a farmer want to fight when the best he can hope for is to come back in one piece to his farm' (That last '...' is a paraphrase of the rest of the quote that is not shown in this thread or in the link)

That being said, although I think you are misinterpreting the "of course people dont want war", I see your point. If the people already want the war then they dont need convincing. But wayne was using it to say that Bush is simply doing what Goering was talking about, and my original point was just that you could try to apply this quote to any governments justification for war, but that doesnt mean that such justification is the same tactic Goehring is discussing. Sometimes war justifications are correct.

[My Final Spider]

But people do want to fight sometimes.

That's my point. There are cases when there's popular outcry for war.

[treborf]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

We're seeing the truth of his statements. My purpose is not applaud the Nazis, but to show how gullible people are. Even a bunch of flunky Nazis can manipulate them--and to war, no less! I know it's all in vain. They'll make the same mistake the next time. Pete Seeger asked, "when will they ever learn?" The answer is "never."
I hope you'll forgive me for noting how your words drip with contempt for your fellow human citizens. Do you find that many people are persuaded by your arguments? I would be surprised. Most people stop listening the moment they catch a whiff of condescension. Maybe that's why they're not learning.

[Charles Livingston]

"But people do want to fight sometimes.

That's my point. There are cases when there's popular outcry for war."

Sorry, I edited my post above, but it looks like a little late. Please reread my original response.

I would also like to add that there is some popular outcry for war in this case. There is usually always a portion of the population of a given country that supports and a portion that doesnt support. So I guess you are talking in a majority/minority sense, but even here the majority seems to be for it so then the quote becomes meaningless in this situation. I think we are really splitting hairs here anyway. I was trying to undermine Wayne using this quote by saying that it can be applied to all wars but then will fail a lot of the time as not being the case. Your statement probably only helped my argument, so I will agree with you that when the peopel dont need convincing this quote is hogwash. My original point was just that it is hogwash a lot of the time even when people do need convincing. Sometimes leaders know more or are wiser than the majority view.

[My Final Spider]

I see what you mean.

And there is some outcry for war. Part of what makes this conversation complicated is that you can't really charecteraize a whole country's desire or aversion to war easily, and certainly not in this case.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by treborf

I hope you'll forgive me for noting how your words drip with contempt for your fellow human citizens. Do you find that many people are persuaded by your arguments? I would be surprised. Most people stop listening the moment they catch a whiff of condescension. Maybe that's why they're not learning.
I have persuaded some people with my arguments. However, I've also had to put up with "rebuttals" from true believers that were straw man arguments and/or contemptuous personal attacks. It was especially appalling to encounter such nonsense on a message board for an organization dedicated to promoting critical thinking and skepticism.

[Charles Livingston]

Agreed. I have edited my original post yet again to clarify my argument about what he means by 'people dont want war' because i am obviously a bit too anal. My argument as originally presented ran in circles a bit. I never claimed to be the smartest apple on the cart!

[Cleopatra]

So Wayne , let's discuss about it a bit, it will help us to relax

where is this boxing sac for Christ sake...

Based on the sources you quoted in your original post, do you expect President Bush to use the War against Terrorism as a medium to abolish Democracy and to establish his Regime, the way Hitler did?

Edited to add Otherwise, why use THIS particular source to quote? Which conclusions does this source help you to extract?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
I would also like to add that there is some popular outcry for war in this case.
Nonsense! There was popular outcry for war against al Qaida and the Taliban because we actually were attacked. There was no such outcry for war against Iraq until the Bush administration began manufacturing a case for war against a county that had NOT attacked us.

You misunderstood the quote. It wasn't meant to apply to people who were actually defending themselves against an attack. It was meant to address how support for war is created by an aggressor. You TELL people they are being attacked and that the country is exposed to great danger.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by c0rbin
When the US starts mass executions of non-combatants, I would be willing to entertain comparisons to NAZI Germany.

Until then, find a better argument.

Hey, if we had to wait that long, I could never give you this to entertain :D

September 1st, 1939

"Seit 5 Uhr 45 wird jetzt zurückgeschossen!"
( thats roughly "We are shooting back since 5.45h"!)

Adolf Hitler
(justifying with a barefaced lie the German attack on Poland as a defensive action against Polish agression)

Now, who said something about America had to defend itself (or is it herself?) against the somewhat far fetched threat from Iraq?

Zee

P.S.: Don't come down on me too hard fellas, I'm biting my tongue right now, because it's somewhere in my left cheek.

[Cleopatra]

Wayne, while I was typing you answered my second question.

Thucidetes or even Clausewitz have analyzed exactly what you say : "It was meant to address how support for war is created by an aggressor"

Why choose such a repulsive source that creates such strong feelings?

[treborf]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I have persuaded some people with my arguments. However, I've also had to put up with "rebuttals" from true believers that were straw man arguments and/or contemptuous personal attacks. It was especially appalling to encounter such nonsense on a message board for an organization dedicated to promoting critical thinking and skepticism.
I know what you mean. I've been disappointed by the general tone of debate in the forums. It's particularly sad when you see people who carefully build very persuasive cases, only to repel potential converts with snide remarks that only appeal to the like-minded. Not a good formula for "changing the world".

[Charles Livingston]

Wayne,
I said there is some outcry for this war, not that there was some outcry BEFORE Bush came to us. Please read my above, edited, posts and I think it will be more clear. I dont think Geohring was limitiing this to outright attack, he really just meant this:

Just on the principle of life, no one inherently wants to go fight, but it is very easy to convince the population that there is a good enough reason to fight (even if there isnt one).

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Why choose such a repulsive source that creates such strong feelings?
Because the statements were so spot on and because the source is repulsive and creates strong feelings. I invite you to read the analysis I linked (as "Reference") in my initial post.

The Nazis were master manipulators. How else could they have gotten support for their maddness? Their methods have been observed and replicated. For example, the Big Lie that is repeated because mere repetition gains it credibility. Note how Bush and company kept trying to create a link in people's minds between Saddam and Usama and 9/11, despite the total lack of evidence and the improbability of the link. (I'm not disputing a link between Usama and 9/11, but between Saddam and the other two.) They succeeded. Polling has shown that over half of Americans believe that Saddam was personally involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
Wayne,
I said there is some outcry for this war, not that there was some outcry BEFORE Bush came to us. Please read my above, edited, posts and I think it will be more clear. I dont think Geohring was limitiing this to outright attack, he really just meant this:

Just on the principle of life, no one inherently wants to go fight, but it is very easy to convince the population that there is a good enough reason to fight (even if there isnt one).
Charles, I apologize if I'm not clear on your points or have misrepresented them. However, the only outcry I can recall that preceded Bush's war cries was from the same small group of neoconservatives who now staff his administration and who wanted this war whether or not Saddam remained in power.

[Cleopatra]

Wayne

I sense anger in your post, not towards me but in general, so I will keep my voice lower than usual to make things easier :)

Yes, you are right, Nazis mastered propaganda but they weren't the only ones. It's just that, like everything else they had done during the War, they did this as well, with an industrialized or even worse, scientific way.

But when you are using historical sources in debates, the important thing is , in my opinion of course, to show how we won't make History to repeat itself.

In our case, I would see an accordance if you stated that the major risk with the perpetual War against Terrorism is to Demolish Democracy the way Hitler did.

Is this what you fear?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Wayne

But when you are using historical sources in debates, the important thing is , in my opinion of course, to show how we won't make History to repeat itself.

In our case, I would see an accordance if you stated that the major risk with the perpetual War against Terrorism is to Demolish Democracy the way Hitler did.

Is this what you fear?

My fear too.

The famous question during Vietnam was "how will we know when we've won?" The answer being that because we were after the "hearts and minds" of the people, we could never win.

So too with "The War Against Terrorism". How will we know when it's over? I am against terrorism too. But we shouldn't wage war against random opponents and abridge civil rights in the process.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In our case, I would see an accordance if you stated that the major risk with the perpetual War against Terrorism is to Demolish Democracy the way Hitler did.

Is this what you fear?
I disagree with your assertion on accordance. The actions of the Bush administration and the acquiesence of the US public validate the statements of Goering.

However, the War on Terrorism has already been used to weaken constitutional protections and Ashcroft apparently wants to go further. Scalia stated this week that constitutional protections can be scaled back during warfare to "constitutional minimums." There was talk last year of weakening or overturning the Posse Comitatus Act. So maybe you should be concerned with where things are going.

I am not trying to draw a parallel between the Nazi regime and the Bush administration, so if you're trying to lure me into that distraction, you're out of luck. My point in this thread is to show how people are easily manipulated into supporting wars of aggression. This thread, as can be discerned from my initial post, is not about the War on Terror. I was calling attention to the war on Iraq.

[Cleopatra]

Wow, tones of anger!

The War in Iraq is in the context of the War against terror.

You have assumed that I dissagree with you, why is that?
Because I didn't catch you by the throat the way the others did?

You are wrong, because I agree with you, regarding your reservations I mean.

I am a bit sensitive with the use of Nazi material though, I think it's wrong to use it in every possible occasion but this is what I think.

I also believe that it's wrong to use History, if you are not willing to make the clear accordance and that's because you minimize the importance of the original facts.

If you make the comparison of the German general public of the 30ies with todays Americans, you minimize the responsibilities of the Germans and I don't like this.

That's why I asked you to clarify it, not to lure you in comparisons you don't want to make.

Dr.Chinese Just a thought from someone who observes things from a distance. As long as Americans believe in their Constitution, there is nothing to be afraid of.IMHO, of course

[treborf]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

My point in this thread is to show how people are easily manipulated into supporting wars of aggression.
I don't feel at all manipulated, yet I support the war. The main reason I support the war is that I believe more innocent Iraqi lives will be saved by forcibly removing Saddam (including civilian casualties) than by leaving him in power (see this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16032) to read my argument). If you disagree, please make your case on that thread.

So would you consider me one of the "gullible" masses? Or am I merely an exception to the rule? Isn't it possible that many people have simply concluded that Saddam is a threat (based on his track record), and that he's very unlikely to mend his ways voluntarily?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I also believe that it's wrong to use History, if you are not willing to make the clear accordance and that's because you minimize the importance of the original facts.

If you make the comparison of the German general public of the 30ies with todays Americans, you minimize the responsibilities of the Germans and I don't like this.

That's why I asked you to clarify it, not to lure you in comparisons you don't want to make.

Dr.Chinese Just a thought from someone who observes things from a distance. As long as Americans believe in their Constitution, there is nothing to be afraid of.IMHO, of course

Some good points. Again, not taking the German thing to far, but...

I wonder about individuals within Nazi Germany during the 30's. There must have been any number who questioned early Nazi actions. And then said, "how much worse could it get, if this is as bad as it gets, I can live with the compromise". And then, of course, it did keeping getting ever more out of hand.

In other words, how do you easily recognize the point of no return?

[Shane Costello]

A bit of historical context here.

While Goering, Hitler et al were frightening the German populace with a succession of bogeymen (Jews, Treaty of Versailles etc), Franklin Delano Roosevelt was telling the American populace "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Big difference here.

If there was one historical figure with a decided lack of insight, it was Hermann Goering. He assured Hitler that the Luftwaffe would easily overcome the RAF. He also assured Hitler that there was no way in the world the RAF could bomb Berlin, remarking "You could call me Meyer if it happens". He also dismissed the potential threat of a belligerant US, claiming that while Americans were adept at making refrigerators and disposable razors, planes and tanks would be beyond them. He was also a drug addict.

Even a bunch of flunky Nazis can manipulate them--and to war, no less! I know it's all in vain.

He was dealing with a very credulous nation. At the time most Germans believed that Germany hadn't even lost WWI, rather they'd been stabbed in the back by a conspiracy of Jews and Communists.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by treborf

I don't feel at all manipulated, yet I support the war. The main reason I support the war is that I believe more innocent Iraqi lives will be saved by forcibly removing Saddam (including civilian casualties) than by leaving him in power (see this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16032) to read my argument). If you disagree, please make your case on that thread.

So would you consider me one of the "gullible" masses? Or am I merely an exception to the rule? Isn't it possible that many people have simply concluded that Saddam is a threat (based on his track record), and that he's very unlikely to mend his ways voluntarily?

"The end justifies the means." Once you are convinced to yield your principles on that point - which is how the manipilation works - then the rest is easy. Bush convinces us that an illegal war - he provides straw arguments why it IS legal - nonetheless leads to benefits (happy Iraqis, etc.) which are desirable. But you make a bargain with the devil.

You don't feel manipulated? Exactly how did you feel about going to war with Saddam before 9/11? How about after we lost track of Osama (12/2001)? Be honest.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrChinese


In other words, how do you easily recognize the point of no return?

Dr.Chinese.

I am too small to answer to a question, major intellects have failed.

I think that it's easy to recognize the point, the difficult part is to persuade the majority. If the majority don't see it, it will eventually have to pay the consequencies...

And yet...it moves...

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Wow, tones of anger! Did it ever occur to you that to repeatedly begin your response with a reference to the other person's "anger" can be annoying? I am not angry with you, but you're becoming annoying with these condescending references. Please stop.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The War in Iraq is in the context of the War against terror.

You have assumed that I dissagree with you, why is that?
Because I didn't caught you by the throat the way the others did?
It is true that Bush has disingenuously linked his aggression in Iraq to the war on terrorism. However, I want to make clear distinctions regarding the application of my point. Remember how I had to distinguish between clear cases of self-defense and acts of aggression in a post to Charles? I was trying to maintain that distinction.

After you have participated on this Board a while, you will also be wary of sophistry, straw man arguments and attempts to lure someone into a diversion. Thank you for clarifying your position.
Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am a bit sensitive with the use of Nazi material though, I think it's wrong to use it in every possible occasion but this is what I think. Comparisons to the Nazis are overused. I explained why I thought the quotation was appropriate and I explained how I was not trying to stretch comparisons too far. I hope you understand.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I also believe that it's wrong to use History, if you are not willing to make the clear accordance and that's because you minimize the importance of the original facts.
What is meant by "clear accordance"? I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Should we learn from history or deny it?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
If you make the comparison of the German general public of the 30ies with todays Americans, you minimize the responsibilities of the Germans and I don't like this.

That's why I asked you to clarify it, not to lure you in comparisons you don't want to make.
:confused: Are you trying to minimize the responsibility of the Americans? There are comparisons to the Germans of the 30's. The whole point was to show how easily people are manipulated into war, and, as Goering said, "it works the same in every country." I'm trying to wake people up to their folly--and their responsibility.

Eventually, many who today support the war will feel like they were suckered. In my opinion, they are still responsible. They were willing to be fooled.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
While Goering, Hitler et al were frightening the German populace with a succession of bogeymen (Jews, Treaty of Versailles etc), Franklin Delano Roosevelt was telling the American populace "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Big difference here.

Absolutely. And which does Bush most resemble?

[treborf]

Originally posted by DrChinese


"The end justifies the means." Once you are convinced to yield your principles on that point - which is how the manipilation works - then the rest is easy. Bush convinces us that an illegal war - he provides straw arguments why it IS legal - nonetheless leads to benefits (happy Iraqis, etc.) which are desirable. But you make a bargain with the devil.

You don't feel manipulated? Exactly how did you feel about going to war with Saddam before 9/11? How about after we lost track of Osama (12/2001)? Be honest.
Honestly, doc, before 9/11 I was going on my merry way, not really thinking about it. 9/11 was a wake up call. And, yes, even after we lost track of Osama, I wasn't really thinking about Saddam. Truth be told, I was against the war right up until a few days ago. Ironically, my mind changed when I stopped thinking about the Bush administration's arguments (weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism), and just thought solely about the fate of the Iraqi people. When I looked into what Saddam has really done to his people, I was a changed person. Saddam and the Nazis have a lot in common.

At this point, my only regret is that the world didn't take action earlier.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by treborf

I don't feel at all manipulated, yet I support the war. The main reason I support the war is that I believe more innocent Iraqi lives will be saved by forcibly removing Saddam (including civilian casualties) than by leaving him in power (see this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16032) to read my argument). If you disagree, please make your case on that thread.

You are new here, treborf, and I have no reason to think you are anything other than a reasonable, thoughtful person. However, I am not going to participate on your other thread because I have already debated the same line of argument earlier in a thread started by stamenfilcker. I am sure that you will find others to help you test your ideas. I have already spent too much time today on this thread.

I will let you consider this point as you debate on the other thread. Don't be lured into a false dilemma. The majority of people to have died in Iraq for political reasons have died as a result of the overly harsh sanctions. I'm not excusing Hussein from all responsibility, but a false dilemma assumes only two options, such as, do we leave everything the same way (including the sanctions) or do we go to war? Are those really the only two options? Can you think of any others?

Edited to add: And to what degree are Iraqis responsible for their own fate and changing it?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

After you have participated on this Board a while, you will also be wary of sophistry, straw man arguments and attempts to lure someone into a diversion.

I find the methods you described above as completely legitimate in a debate. This is what the Art of Debating is about. Personally, I won't be wary either of sophistry or attempts to be dragged into conclusions because I don't hold the universal truth and I am not a preacher. Above all, I don't feel like I am passing any kind of exams here.

Comparisons to the Nazis are overused. I explained why I thought the quotation was appropriate and I explained how I was not trying to stretch comparisons too far. I hope you understand.

I hope you understand too, why I find the excessive comparisons with the Nazis dangerous.

Should we learn from history or deny it?

I wish we could but we can't learn from History. I don't know why, it must be a human thing.

I'm trying to wake people up to their folly--and their responsibility.

Yes, I know but have you ever thought that people don't want to be awaken?

Eventually, many who today support the war will feel like they were suckered. In my opinion, they are still responsible. They were willing to be fooled. ( bolds are mine)

Oh! You answer your self,sorry!!
Yes!!!! We agree! They are responsible, they took their choices so, none manipulated anyone the way Georing did.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Yes!!!! We agree! They are responsible, they took their choices so, none manipulated anyone the way Georing did.
We don't agree. Both the Nazis and the Bush administration used fear to manipulate people who were willing to be fooled, which can be also stated, were willing to be manipulated. Their choices were to place uncritical support behind their leaders.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert:
Absolutely. And which does Bush most resemble?

Get real, Wayne.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Wayne Grabert:


Get real, Wayne.
What was the point of your prior post? Do you think FDR speaks for every American leader past, present and future? Wake up, (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/side/1822609) Shane.
The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The same farfetched argument could be used against whoever the bogeyman of the moment is. What do you think would have been the reaction if Reagan decided to occupy Libya and had used the same exact argument against Ghadaffi? People would have fallen for it. (It would even have been much more credible in that case given Libya's involvement in the Lockerbie attack.)

It's simple. If you're the president and you want to start a war, just stir up fears using whatever phony pretext is available.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

What was the point of your prior post? Do you think FDR speaks for every American leader past, present and future? Wake up, (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/side/1822609) Shane.
The same farfetched argument could be used against whoever the bogeyman of the moment is. What do you think would have been the reaction if Reagan decided to occupy Libya and had used the same exact argument against Ghadaffi? People would have fallen for it. (It would even have been much more credible in that case given Libya's involvement in the Lockerbie attack.)

It's simple. If you're the president and you want to start a war, just stir up fears using whatever phony pretext is available.

I hilighted that one word in particular because I want to point out a vast difference you seem to be overlooking in your comparison. No intent to occupy on our part. Hitler wanted to occupy everyone. So the Nazis had to find a way of stirring up people for expansion as opposed to stirring up people for pre-emptive protection, liberation of others, oil, take your pick.

[Wayne Grabert]

Shane, since you take an interest in history, why don't you read this account (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/johnson1.html) of the US-Iraq conflict (published January 2003) written by a celebrated American historian?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll
No intent to occupy on our part.
Oh, so how many days till the troops are back home?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by treborf

Honestly, doc, before 9/11 I was going on my merry way, not really thinking about it. 9/11 was a wake up call. And, yes, even after we lost track of Osama, I wasn't really thinking about Saddam. Truth be told, I was against the war right up until a few days ago. Ironically, my mind changed when I stopped thinking about the Bush administration's arguments (weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism), and just thought solely about the fate of the Iraqi people. When I looked into what Saddam has really done to his people, I was a changed person. Saddam and the Nazis have a lot in common.

At this point, my only regret is that the world didn't take action earlier.

Thanks for an honest response. I see your point, and I respect your position. You will get no argument from me about the evil that is Saddam. I personally feel the world will be a better place when he is not in it.

However, back to this thread. I would like to point out that the manipulation of our perceptions by the Bush administration seems to have worked in your case. You acknowledge that Bush created the issue and that your position is driven more by the benefits (helping the Iraqi people) than by the costs (violating international law). Which is how the manipulation succeeds, according to the ideas advanced here. I.e. reasonable ends justify means, then goes it goes further and further.

I would never say the manipulation of our perceptions means that you are in any way a weak individual. Everyone relies upon interpretation and analysis to provide meaning to the raw data that is news. We place a degree of trust in our elected officials to look out for us. That is representative democracy. But the system doesn't always work, and we must be wary.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert:
What was the point of your prior post?

An appeal to common sense. To suggest that Bush is closer to Hitler than FDR is daft.

1. Is there any evidence that the present adminsitration is planning the systematic extermination of a whole people?

2. Has Bush ever collected his political beliefs on paper like Hitler did with "Mein Kampf"? If so how virulent were they?

3. Is Bush preparing to seize power as a dictator?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Wayne Grabert:


An appeal to common sense. To suggest that Bush is closer to Hitler than FDR is daft.

1. Is there any evidence that the present adminsitration is planning the systematic extermination of a whole people?

2. Has Bush ever collected his political beliefs on paper like Hitler did with "Mein Kampf"? If so how virulent were they?

3. Is Bush preparing to seize power as a dictator?
I expect a more honest response from you, Shane. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not understand my question. So, let me rephrase it. Do Bush's public appeals more closely resemble FDR's encouragement that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, or the bogeymen arguments of Hitler? Put another way, is Bush trying to allay fears or to create them?

Did you read the link I provided you above? Before you try to answer my questions in the paragraph above, you should read the link. If you read the link, then you should be able to tell me how, according to the historian, what is going on now is related to what took place 50 years ago in a country other than Iraq.

[kedo1981]

Posted by Shane Costello
“An appeal to common sense. To suggest that Bush is closer to Hitler than FDR is daft.

1. Is there any evidence that the present administration is planning the systematic extermination of a whole people?

2. Has Bush ever collected his political beliefs on paper like Hitler did with "Mein Kampf"? If so how virulent were they?

3. Is Bush preparing to seize power as a dictator?”

Wayne wasn’t this just your assertion in several other threads?

Also you keep bleating the anti war mantra “there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism.”
What about the $25,000 reward paid to suicide bombers?
What about his attempt to have the first Pres. Bush murdered?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Wayne wasn’t this just your assertion in several other threads?
No. It isn't even my assertion in this one. Read my reply to Shane. I am not arguing that Bush = Hitler.

Originally posted by kedo1981
Also you keep bleating the anti war mantra “there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism.”
What about the $25,000 reward paid to suicide bombers?
What about his attempt to have the first Pres. Bush murdered?
I don't dispute that reward money was paid to the families of suicide bombers. I dispute the alleged link between Iraq and al-Qaida, which is a very different thing. Al-Qaida and the Palestinian terrorists are distinct and have different goals and motivations, despite statements by al-Qaida regarding Israel. The Palestinian terrorists are driven by nationalism. Al-Qaida is driven by religion and opposition to US encroachment on the Middle East. Still, has Saddam ever made any effort to arm Palestinian terrorists with WMD or even conventional artillary?

As far as the alleged attempt to have GHW Bush assassinated, this is addressed in the link I provided Shane that was written by a very prominent historian who is professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego. Read it. You will learn much about the history of the US-Iraq conflict. The article is from a chapter of a book in progress and appeared elsewhere on the Internet at an earlier time.

[Wayne Grabert]

I have decided to extract part of the article from the historian to which I keep referring to whet your appetite. The article examines the various "real reasons" for the war against Iraq before putting forth its own theory. I just discovered this article today, but it discusses some matters that I've pointed out in the past.

In the hours immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked for plans to be drawn up for an American assault on Iraq. The following day, in a cabinet meeting at the White House, Rumsfeld again insisted that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism."(1) The president allegedly replied that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible," and instead chose Afghanistan as a much softer target.

These statements and their timing, are noteworthy because the United States had not even determined that the suicide bombers came from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and it has never published any evidence that al-Qaeda had any connection with Iraq. In fact, the 2001 edition of the U.S. Department of State's annual report on Patterns of Global Terrorism does not list any acts of global terrorism linked to the government of Iraq.

(snip)

Ever since the first American war against Iraq, the "Gulf War" of 1991, the people in the White House and the Pentagon who planned and executed it have wanted to go back and finish what they started. They said so in reports written for then Secretary of Defense Cheney in the last years of the George H.W. Bush administration; and during the period when they were out of power, from 1992 to 2000, they drafted plans describing what they would do if the Republicans should retake the White House. In the spring of 1997, a number of them organized themselves as the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) and began to lobby for a regime change in Iraq.

In a letter to President Clinton dated January 26, 1998, they called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power," and in a letter dated May 29, 1998, to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senator Trent Lott, they complained that Clinton had not listened to them, reiterating their recommendation that Saddam Hussein be overthrown. They added, "We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the [Persian] Gulf-and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power." The letters were signed by Donald Rumsfeld; William Kristol, editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard magazine and chairman of PNAC; Elliott Abrams, the convicted Iran-Contra conspirator whom Bush appointed director of Middle Eastern policy on the National Security Council in 2002; Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's deputy at the Pentagon; John Bolton, now undersecretary of state for arms control and international security; Richard Perle, now chairman of the Defense Science Board; William J. Bennett, President Reagan's education secretary; Richard Armitage, now Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department; Zalmay Khalilzad, former UNOCAL consultant and Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan; and several other prominent American militarists. In addition to the letter-signatories, Dick Cheney; I. Lewis Libby, now Cheney's chief of staff; Stephen Cambone, a Pentagon bureaucrat in both Bush administrations; and many others founded PNAC. They have made their ideas readily available in a September 2000 report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century" and in a book edited by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy. (2)

After George W. Bush became president, many of these men returned to positions of power in American foreign policy. For nine months, they bided their time. They were waiting, in the words of PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses," for a "catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor" that would mobilize the public and allow them to put their theories and plans into practice. September 11 was, of course, precisely what they needed. Condoleezza Rice called together members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities' to fundamentally change American doctrine, and the shape of the world, in the wake of September 11th." She said, "I really think this period is analogous to 1945 to 1947," when fear and paranoia led the United States into its Cold War with the USSR. (3)

Like I said before, wake up!

[Jim Lennox]

"After all, this is the guy [Saddam Hussein] who tried to kill my dad." President George W. Bush, at Houston, September 26, 2002

That has got to be the best quote from that article.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Shane, since you take an interest in history, why don't you read this account (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/johnson1.html) of the US-Iraq conflict (published January 2003) written by a celebrated American historian?

"Celebrated" by whom? You mean, like, Pravda? (http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/10/11/17732.html)

Let's see. Is Bush more like FDR or Hitler? Good question.


It is because the people of the United States must, for the sake of their own future, give thought to the rest of the world, that I, as the responsible executive head of the Nation, have chosen this great inland city and this gala occasion to speak to you on a subject of definite national importance.
The political situation in the world, which of late has been growing progressively worse, is such as to cause grave concern and anxiety to all the peoples and nations who wish to live in peace and amity with their neighbors.
Some fifteen years ago the hopes of mankind for a continuing era of international peace were raised to great heights when more than sixty nations solemnly pledged themselves not to resort to arms in furtherance of their national aims and policies. The high aspirations expressed in the Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact and the hopes for peace thus raised have of late given way to a haunting fear of calamity. The present reign of terror and international lawlessness began a few years ago.
It began through unjustified interference in the internal affairs of other nations or the invasion of alien territory in violation of
treaties. It has now reached a stage where the very foundations of civilization are seriously threatened. The landmarks, the traditions which have marked the progress of civilization toward a condition of law and order and justice are being wiped away.
Without a declaration of war and without warning or justification of any kind civilians, including vast numbers of women and children, are being ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air. In times of so-called peace ships are being attacked and sunk by submarines without cause or notice. Nations are fomenting and taking sides in civil warfare in nations that have never done them any harm. Nations claiming freedom for themselves deny it to others.
Innocent peoples, innocent nations are being cruelly sacrificed to a greed for power and supremacy which is devoid of all sense of justice and humane consideration.
To paraphrase a recent author "perhaps we foresee a time when men, exultant in the technique of homicide, will rage so hotly over the world that every precious thing will be in danger, every book, every picture, every harmony, every treasure garnered through two millenniums, the small, the delicate, the defenseless -- all will be lost or wrecked or utterly destroyed."

FDR in his quarantine speech about Germany four years prior to our entering the war when the American isolationist movement was high.

Copy of speech
here. (http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist122/Part3/FDRQuar.htm)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Oh, so how many days till the troops are back home?

Can't say really. It's hard to predict things, if not actually impossible if you're thinking of asking Miss Cleo. But rest assured they will return home from Iraq once things are stable. Maybe even before if the UN or some other country decides to send in others to maintain the peace while elections are held and all the rebuilding takes place.

Unless of course you have a different definition of "occupy" in mind. I mean how long will you occupy that chair in front of your comp? Will you occupy it for another 3 minutes or will something gain your attention and make you write something and therefore add additional time to the length of occupation your ass has in that chair?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LukeT

"Celebrated" by whom? You mean, like, Pravda? (http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/10/11/17732.html)
Stupid point. Just because Pravda recently quotes him does nothing to discredit him. During the Cold War, Johnson was known to be staunchly anti-Communist. Your dishonesty is noted.
Originally posted by LukeT
FDR in his quarantine speech about Germany four years prior to our entering the war when the American isolationist movement was high.

Copy of speech
here. (http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist122/Part3/FDRQuar.htm)
Quarantine speech? Isn't that the same as containment? In case you didn't know it, the US didn't declare war on Germany until after Germany declared war on us.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Troll

Unless of course you have a different definition of "occupy" in mind. I mean how long will you occupy that chair in front of your comp? Will you occupy it for another 3 minutes or will something gain your attention and make you write something and therefore add additional time to the length of occupation your ass has in that chair?
How long will you keep your thumb up your ass? Till you feel the urge to suck it again? How long till you grow a brain?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

How long will you keep your thumb up your ass? Till you feel the urge to suck it again? How long till you grow a brain?

haha. Not much for actual intelligent debate, are ya. It's times like this that make me re-think my intent to change the quote in my sig.

I simply asked you to predict an amount of time as you asked me to do. Only I made it easier for you as I gave you yourself as a factor. Instead of trying to predict it, you come back with petty and childish insults?

[treborf]

Originally posted by DrChinese

I would like to point out that the manipulation of our perceptions by the Bush administration seems to have worked in your case. You acknowledge that Bush created the issue and that your position is driven more by the benefits (helping the Iraqi people) than by the costs (violating international law). Which is how the manipulation succeeds, according to the ideas advanced here. I.e. reasonable ends justify means, then goes it goes further and further.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I think you'd be surprised by how many issues we agree on. I differ with the Bush administration on many issues, and I'm aware that an element of the far-right of the republican ranks have been advocating a "pre-emptive" foreign policy for quite some time. It's a policy that I reject.

Any argument for war should be approached with the utmost skepticism. I commend you for recognizing this. Nothing disgusts me more than the fist-pumping glee exibited by some of the pro-war folks on this board. Perhaps the only point I'd want to float out there is that just because Bush raised the issue of Saddam, doesn't mean Saddam wasn't a problem that needed to be addressed. Personally, I think if the Bush administration had taken a more genuinely collaborative approach with our allies, a consensus for meaningful action could have been reached. Instead, the administration arrogantly made clear from the get-go that there was only one acceptable outcome, making negotiations pointless.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Stupid point. Just because Pravda recently quotes him does nothing to discredit him. During the Cold War, Johnson was known to be staunchly anti-Communist. Your dishonesty is noted.

He is staunchly anti-American. Nothing dishonest here.

And an article is hardly just a quote.

You are amusing in your attempts to cry foul, especially since you see nazis under Bush's bed.

[Quarantine speech? Isn't that the same as containment? In case you didn't know it, the US didn't declare war on Germany until after Germany declared war on us.

It is well known that FDR was planning years ahead of time to engage Germany in war. Just like the implications you have been making that Bush planned on engaging Iraq in war years ahead of time.

FDR was fighting an isolationist mood in the U.S. during his Presidency. He did everything he could, under the circumstances, to do the right thing. The Lend-Lease Act, for one example.

(edited to correct errors induced by forum acting up)

[Jim Lennox]

Methinks the forum is playing up.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by LukeT


He is staunchly anti-American. Nothing dishonest here.

And an article is hardly just a quote.

You are amusing in your attempts to cry foul, especially since you see nazis under Bush's bed.

Why don't you try constructing an argument rather than false ad hominem attacks on Johnson and me?

Your comparison of Nazi Germany to Iraq is laughable.

Edited to add: I see by your anti-American remark that you've taken Goering's advice to heart.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Why don't you try constructing an argument rather than false ad hominem attacks on Johnson and me?



Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Watne Grabert:
Do Bush's public appeals more closely resemble FDR's encouragement that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, or the bogeymen arguments of Hitler? Put another way, is Bush trying to allay fears or to create them?

As LukeT has pointed out, Bush and FDR were strikingly similar in terms of advocating a proactive response to external threats.

I expect a more honest response from you, Shane. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not understand my question.

Your original question was "Absolutely. And who does Bush resemble?" vis a vis Hitler and FDR. IMO my response was quite appropriate. You never qualified your remark with "....in terms of their manipulation of public opinion and fears in pursuit of political goals".

[hammegk]

Wayne, are you truly nutty as a fruitcake? Or are you just having us on?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by hammegk
Wayne, are you truly nutty as a fruitcake? Or are you just having us on?
Hammegk, I thought you would be flattered by the title of the thread. :p

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Hammegk, I thought you would be flattered by the title of the thread. :p

There were some without doubt much much smarter than me. Obviously you are not a Nazi, just a doof. Wouldn't you be happier with more of your own kind up in SF?

Anyway, carry on with the Bush bash.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
As LukeT has pointed out, Bush and FDR were strikingly similar in terms of advocating a proactive response to external threats.
No, for that to be true, Bush would have to be proactive in responding to an external threat. Anyone who thinks Iraq is such a threat is a fool. And he is ignoring North Korea by refusing direct talks. Get real, Shane.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Your original question was "Absolutely. And who does Bush resemble?" vis a vis Hitler and FDR. IMO my response was quite appropriate. You never qualified your remark with "....in terms of their manipulation of public opinion and fears in pursuit of political goals".
Why should I have needed to qualify my question? You made a statement about the Nazis creating "bogeymen" and FDR claiming the only thing to fear was fear itself. Then you added, "Big difference here." And that was what I quoted from you when I posed the question.

Correct answer: Bush resembles the Nazi bogeymen creators and not the statesmanship of FDR.

EDITED TO ADD: Regarding the "threat" posed by Iraq, don't you find it hypocritical that the same people in Washington who were pushing so hard for this war because Iraq was such a "threat" were at the same time boasting that the war would be a "cakewalk" toward victory?

Remember how easily Iraq was defeated in 1991? Well, during his confirmation hearing to become Secretary of State, Colin Powell in January 2001 claimed that Iraq's military power was only about a third what it was ten years earlier. And my, what an awesome threat Iraq has proven itself to be in the last week! Yes, the comparison to the threat posed by Nazi Germany during the Roosevelt administration is uncanny!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

We don't agree. Both the Nazis and the Bush administration used fear to manipulate people who were willing to be fooled, which can be also stated, were willing to be manipulated. Their choices were to place uncritical support behind their leaders.

Ok.I see.

But in both cases, people who chose to be fooled and manipulated belonged to developed societies.

Beethoven, Schiller,Goethe and what we call western Philosophy were born in Germany and yet those people knew and accepted the fact that humans were cremated some kilometres away from their houses.

Modern Americans are the anchestors of those who composed the Federalist Papers, one of the most important political texts ever composed... United States, although it's a new country it has an amazing tradition ,in political thinking, this is why that it's not so easy to fool americans.

If you take into consideration that Germans had a strong reason to be fooled by Hitler( he appealed to their lowest ego and he talked about their lost national pride), a reason that Americans lack at the moment ( because Saddam didn't humiliate USA ) that makes the later worse than Nazis, according to your logic.

That's why I think that the example was unfortunate.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by treborf

I don't feel at all manipulated, yet I support the war. The main reason I support the war is that I believe more innocent Iraqi lives will be saved by forcibly removing Saddam (including civilian casualties) than by leaving him in power (see this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16032) to read my argument). If you disagree, please make your case on that thread.

So would you consider me one of the "gullible" masses? Or am I merely an exception to the rule? Isn't it possible that many people have simply concluded that Saddam is a threat (based on his track record), and that he's very unlikely to mend his ways voluntarily?

Do you support war with South Africa to feed their population? Indonesia? Syria? China? I'm not the best debater on this point but their are countries with far more and far worse human rights violations then Iraq. I might call you gullible, but more likely I would call you a hypocrite. It all depends. Do you think America should police all the worlds human rights violations?


Originally posted by Cleopatra
Modern Americans are the anchestors of those who composed the Federalist Papers, one of the most important political texts ever composed... United States, although it's a new country it has an amazing tradition ,in political thinking, this is why that it's not so easy to fool americans.

Hahhahaa. You are very amusing. How did you ever find a web site devoted to critical thinking? Did you know that one of my ancestors won a nobel prize for chemistry? I believe that I am an expert in chemistry now. (please note sarcasm).

It is very easy to fool Americans, your pride is undoing your reason.


Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, for that to be true, Bush would have to be proactive in responding to an external threat. Anyone who thinks Iraq is such a threat is a fool. And he is ignoring North Korea by refusing direct talks. Get real, Shane.

Regarding the "threat" posed by Iraq, don't you find it hypocritical that the same people in Washington who were pushing so hard for this war because Iraq was such a "threat" were at the same time boasting that the war would be a "cakewalk" toward victory?

Remember how easily Iraq was defeated in 1991? Well, during his confirmation hearing to become Secretary of State, Colin Powell in January 2001 claimed that Iraq's military power was only about a third what it was ten years earlier. And my, what an awesome threat Iraq has proven itself to be in the last week! Yes, the comparison to the threat posed by Nazi Germany during the Roosevelt administration is uncanny!


Wayne your comments are refreshing and enlightening. I do hope that the childish comments that are continually directed towards you and your arguments won't overtly discourage you. I appreciate the links. But just for fun I am going to present a counter-argument to your actual argument (rather then a straw man). Please note that I do not believe this counter argument.


Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Reference.

It's even easier than Goering claimed. You can also sell the common people on a wild and improbable story that unless you attack pre-emptively, the enemy will attack sometime in the future by giving weapons to a proxy whom he hates and who hates him.

I assert that given the current level of communications available to everyman (via the internet, radio, and television) leaders no longer have such an easy time duping the public. I assert that todays American's are critical thinkers who question everything the government says. American's truly understand and value our constituational rights. (It must be true because our ancestors wrote the constitution!! [sorry I couldn't help it =) ])

Today when the government makes a claim everyman refuses to digest such a claim into their body of beleifs until it has been verified by several credible sources accrossed a body of mediums. With the advent of the internet and an increase in such mediums American's are no longer subject to such "duping".

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot

Hahhahaa. You are very amusing. How did you ever find a web site devoted to critical thinking? Did you know that one of my ancestors won a nobel prize for chemistry? I believe that I am an expert in chemistry now. (please note sarcasm).

It is very easy to fool Americans, your pride is undoing your reason.

I am honored, Sir, to be acquainted with a Nobel Prize offsping. You are another vivid example on how Biology has so little to do with social progress...

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I am honored, Sir, to be acquainted with a Nobel Prize offsping.

And I'm honored to be acquanted with a particpant in the tradition of the culture of one of the authors of the federalist papers! Lets pat each other on the back!

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You are another vivid example on how Biology has so little to do with social progress...

*cough*

[treborf]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot

Do you support war with South Africa to feed their population? Indonesia? Syria? China? I'm not the best debater on this point but their are countries with far more and far worse human rights violations then Iraq. I might call you gullible, but more likely I would call you a hypocrite. It all depends. Do you think America should police all the worlds human rights violations?

I understand your point. This is the same point that Evildave was making on another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=390938#post390938). There are certainly other human rights catastrophes occuring around the world, some worse that those occuring in Iraq. I would like to see more action taken to solve these problems, although I would prefer that the rest of the world take part, not just America. Since you didn't know this about me, I can see how you might have thought I was a hypocrite.

So, yes, Iraq is just one country in which human rights violations occur. And although you didn't say this, I suspect you would also agree that the U.S. is toppling Saddam for reasons beyond his human rights violations. All these things are true. But you know what? I'm still glad that Saddam is being stripped of his ability to commit more atrocities. Regardless of our differences, we should all be glad of that.

[treborf]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I will let you consider this point as you debate on the other thread. Don't be lured into a false dilemma. The majority of people to have died in Iraq for political reasons have died as a result of the overly harsh sanctions. I'm not excusing Hussein from all responsibility, but a false dilemma assumes only two options, such as, do we leave everything the same way (including the sanctions) or do we go to war? Are those really the only two options? Can you think of any others?

Edited to add: And to what degree are Iraqis responsible for their own fate and changing it?
Wayne, I must acknowledge that this is indeed the weak point of my argument. I'm sure there are other options that haven't been pursued. We did more harm than good. And the sanctions were completely ineffective for what they were intended: to pressure Saddam to change his ways or give up power. He still managed to "cleanse" southern Iraq of over 200,000 Marsh Arabs during the reign of sanctions and inspections. I don't buy the argument that even though the U.N imposed the sanctions, the human costs were solely Saddam's doing. Once we realized that Saddam wouldn't act on behalf of his people, we should have come up with another plan.

It would be an interesting exercise to put ourselves in the U.N.'s shoes. If the goal was to prevent Saddam from committing more atrocities, what else could we have done that we didn't do? The Bush administration has argued that we have tried everything, and that force is the only medicine that will work. Have there been any threads that discuss untried ideas for stopping Saddam?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot

Wayne your comments are refreshing and enlightening. I do hope that the childish comments that are continually directed towards you and your arguments won't overtly discourage you.
Thank you, Rusty, for the encouragement. It helps. My patience with the "childish comments" has been getting thin. When I first started participating on this board, it took quite a lot to get me rattled. I could keep my cool even in the face of personal attacks, but now I no longer put up with it. Why should I when this site should be a home for intelligent debate? One should expect a few trolls, but the number of those who are unable or unwilling to use any critical thinking skills or engage any skepticism in the political arena is very disappointing. I simply won't have the time (and I've spent too much already) to keep participating on the board on a regular basis.

Yesterday I watched a forum on CSPAN for over an hour. It was a forum on the Iraq war hosted by a professor at American University who was an expert on nuclear weapons policy. The speakers were from the Veterans for Peace (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/) movement. Most were Vietnam Vets, but one was a WW II vet and a retired US Navy Admiral.

One of the Vietnam Vets discussed the Project for the New American Century and the Bush Doctrine that embraced the policies and goals of PNAC in the foreign policy strategy statement issued by the Bush League Administration last September. He pointed out how the PNAC crowd is very open about their strategy to stage a series of wars to reshape the world to their pleasing. Iraq is just the beginning! Dick Cheney staffed the Defense and State Departments with most of the PNAC members and with members of neoconservative "think" tanks. The vet then made the point that many people are not even aware of the Bush Doctrine and its consequences. They don't know what they are supporting or what they are opposing. And that group (the PNAC neoconservatives) have ten years of planning behind them. They have not only a ten-year head start, but they are in power and forcing their malevolent policies of "benevolent (sic) hegemony" into effect. He made the point that the antiwar movement needs to be a long-term effort that will take at least a generation to oppose not just a war in Iraq, but the foreign policy direction that the US has had forced upon it.

The neoconservative ******** have taken the country away from us. They repudiate all the things this country traditionally stood for and aspired to be. They are the real anti-Americans. They are going to drive this country into the ground by expending its blood and treasure on war after war of conquest and turning the whole world against us (perhaps save Britain whose leadership wants to get back into the imperialist game on our coattails). The irony of it all is that they are power hungry and dream of global hegemony, but their unbridaled lust for power is going bring an end of the US's days as a superpower. We'll be another Russia. We'll have lots of nuclear weapons and a second-rate economy.

EDITED TO ADD: The veteran whose points I summarize above also stated that the Vietnam Veterans of America (http://http://www.vvaf.org/) commissioned a poll (click on the link to read about it) jointly conducted by the leading polling companies for the Republican and Democratic parties to find out what American attitudes were regarding the war against Iraq and foreign policy. I haven't read the poll results yet, but he urged his listeners to do so. He said it reveals the "disconnect" between American attitudes and beliefs on the one side and reality (as understood by those who study foreign policy and world events) on the other.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Dick Cheney staffed the Defense and State Departments with most of the PNAC members and with members of neoconservative "think" tanks.

I think we're seeing the fall out from this strategy now. A think tank made up of like minded individuals becomes too insular. A better think tank ought to include persons with divergent views.

The Bush administration seems strangely oblivious to how their arguments, objectives, and language, play out in the global arena. I fear the Bush team couldn't sell ice water in the Sahara.

Is it just me, or is the phrase "shock and awe" horribly offensive?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DrBenway


I think we're seeing the fall out from this strategy now. A think tank made up of like minded individuals becomes too insular. A better think tank ought to include persons with divergent views.

Good points, Doc. They are locked in their own echo chamber and their policies and actions are heavy handed ("you're either with us or against us," "coalition of the willing"), insensitive and clumsy ("axis of evil"). They are not only misguided and unwise, they are inept. The amateurs have taken over the White House. It's the Bush League Administration.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Thank you, Rusty, for the encouragement. It helps. My patience with the "childish comments" has been getting thin. When I first started participating on this board, it took quite a lot to get me rattled. I could keep my cool even in the face of personal attacks, but now I no longer put up with it. Why should I when this site should be a home for intelligent debate? One should expect a few trolls, but the number of those who are unable or unwilling to use any critical thinking skills or engage any skepticism in the political arena is very disappointing. I simply won't have the time (and I've spent too much already) to keep participating on the board on a regular basis.



What an arrogance!

From my part,accept my sincere apologies for taking up your time.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


What an arrogance!

From my part,accept my sincere apologies for taking up your time.
I'm not surprised that you would say such a thing. You have already stated your belief that sophistry, straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are "legitimate" methods of debate. They are not. They are dishonest.

[Wayne Grabert]

Recently I heard a presentation (not related to the war) given by the president of a public relations firm. He stated that in our culture, visibilty equals credibility. (He wasn't arguing the logic of that equation, just the reality of it.) I believe that one of the reasons some people have such a hard time accepting the reality of PNAC and its goals and its influence is that they haven't heard anything about it except what I've supplied.

The Vietnam Vet on CSPAN to which I referred earlier made the point that any examination or dicussion of the neoconservative movement and the Bush Doctrine that are driving our current foreign policy have been almost completely absent from the mainstream media. It has only been in the last couple of months that there was a Frontline episode on PBS and a Nightline episode on ABC that discussed the origins, formation, policies and influence of PNAC, the neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine. Other than that, zilch.

This ignorance continues, despite the fact that many of the pundits chosen by the networks and cable news to comment on foreign policy are neoconservatives (Richard Perle, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, etc.) who were founding members of PNAC. And if you rely on Fox News, don't expect any such critical examination anytime soon if ever.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I'm not surprised that you would say such a thing. You have already stated your belief that sophistry, straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are "legitimate" methods of debate. They are not. They are dishonest.

From what I have seen in this very thread, you must agree that all the methods mentioned above, especially argumenta ad hominem, are very much of your taste too, otherwise you wouldn't use them yourself.

When people had to deal with such an arrogance from the part of the pacifists and such vulgar and insulting historical examples as the ones you used it's not a surpize that the were persuaded so easily on the necessity of this war by Bush Adminitsration.

They were not fooled. You( not you, personally) failed to persuaded them.

I wish you better luck with Korea and Iran...

Sorry again for taking your time.

Edited to add: Better luck next time. Part II

In the list of methods I consider legitimate in a debate I have excluded argumenta ad hominem, it's you that you included them,(no wonder why) you can check my original post.
Better luck next time.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


From what I have seen in this very thread, you must agree that all the methods mentioned above, especially argumenta ad hominem, are very much of your taste too, otherwise you wouldn't use them yourself.

When people had to deal with such an arrogance from the part of the pacifists and such vulgar and insulting historical examples as the ones you used it's not a surpize that the were persuaded so easily on the necessity of this war by Bush Adminitsration.

They were not fooled. You( not you, personally) failed to persuaded them.

I wish you better luck with Korea and Iran...

Sorry again for taking your time.

Edited to add: Better luck next time. Part II

In the list of methods I consider legitimate in a debate I have excluded argumenta ad hominem, it's you that you included them,(no wonder why) you can check my original post.
Better luck next time.

But Wayne has not used such attacks. Wayne's original post posses some of the characteristics of such an attack but he had an actual argument.

I am going to spell this argument out for all who have trouble understanding:


1) Citizens of a country, when told they are "in danger" or "being attacked" will suspend their critical thinking process.
2) Once citizens have suspended their critical thinking process they are apt to believe everything their leaders have said.
3) Many unscrupulous leaders have taken advantage of this process to lead their people somewhere that the people do not want to go to, but the minority leaders do.

He lists the most powerful example of such, being Nazi Germany. He then requests that all Americans on this board realize that this could be potentially happening (not that it is). He wants everyone on this board to be aware that history supporst the argument that 1, 2, 3) are possible.

In another post where I was pretending to be some neoconservative psychopath (along with JK) I posted the "evidence" that Bush et. al. have used to "prove" that Iraq is in cahoots with Al Qaeda and the 11/9/01 attacks.

Bush will say something like:
"We have definate proof that Al Qaeda members have been in Baghdad."

OMG OMG OMG!!! Whoopity ****. We also have definite proof that they have been in Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania. Does this mean we are going to bomb them too? If you want I can dig up many more misleading statements made by our fear-mongering leadership.

These quotes serve the purpose of further suggesting that we Americans may be being subject to premises 1, 2, 3). The polls that show that nearly 50% of America believes that Iraq was directly involved with the 11/9 attacks also suggest those premises are at work.

It is not proof, it is something to be aware of.