This is scary!

[SDS416]

Was doing some background work for a paper I was writing and found this in some appendix material from the Nuremberg trials...and it is as true today as it was nearly 60 years ago:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, its the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and its always a simple matter to drag the people along whether its 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." - Hermann Goering

And its disturbing that America's leaders are following a doctrine developed by Nazi Germany some 60 years later.

[Frndlefire]

I would be surprised if the Nazis actually developed it... i mean, it doesnt seem like that recent of a political strategy. I've also heard people quote passages of Mein Kampf replacing the word jew with liberal and sounding pretty effective. But you could twist any source you want to fit your objective so...

[bayhawkslax216]

oh yeah, i have heard that first quote numerous times and it is very frightening. The scary part is that the German leaders no longer exploit their citizens like that, but the USA leaders do.

[TheKOB]

That's an awful high and mighty attitude to take.....the leaders are exploiting the peasents. That's the only explaination for it? It couldn't be that you're wrong, could it? Stop acting so high brow and above it all. Like Frndlefire said, you can twist anything around. The main reason this war is such a big deal is because it's a Republican at the helm, not a Democrat. Clinton got involved in numerous other wars for lesser reasons than national security, and there wasn't a public outcry.

[SDS416]

That's an awful high and mighty attitude to take.....the leaders are exploiting the peasents. That's the only explaination for it? It couldn't be that you're wrong, could it? Stop acting so high brow and above it all. Like Frndlefire said, you can twist anything around. The main reason this war is such a big deal is because it's a Republican at the helm, not a Democrat. Clinton got involved in numerous other wars for lesser reasons than national security, and there wasn't a public outcry.

Before you dismiss the rather simple concept of exploitation, give it some more consideration. Take a look at who is profiting from this government's policies and on whose backs they are profiting. Look at the price of gasoline and then look at the double and triple digit increases in profits from virtually every gasoline producer in this country. And while you are looking at that, take a look at the largest and most frequent contributors to the RNC and to the Bush Election Campaign. There is a relationship. Does the word "Haliburton" mean anything to you?

The reason this was is such a big deal (your words, and I have a hard time calling any war anything less than a big deal...it is a war afterall) is that there is a complete failure by the government to provide to the american people 1 legitimate reason for this action. It wouldn't matter if a republican or democrat or communist was in office...when you ask the American people to go to war, you better have a damn good reason for it.

[Longest]

Before you dismiss the rather simple concept of exploitation, give it some more consideration. Take a look at who is profiting from this government's policies and on whose backs they are profiting. Look at the price of gasoline and then look at the double and triple digit increases in profits from virtually every gasoline producer in this country. And while you are looking at that, take a look at the largest and most frequent contributors to the RNC and to the Bush Election Campaign. There is a relationship. Does the word "Haliburton" mean anything to you?

You have drawn us a picture of a possible conspiracy but have proven nothing.


The reason this was is such a big deal (your words, and I have a hard time calling any war anything less than a big deal...it is a war afterall) is that there is a complete failure by the government to provide to the american people 1 legitimate reason for this action. It wouldn't matter if a republican or democrat or communist was in office...when you ask the American people to go to war, you better have a damn good reason for it.

I agree with you on the needing a good damn reason.

Dan

[TheKOB]

[QUOTE=SDS416]Take a look at who is profiting from this government's policies and on whose backs they are profiting. [QUOTE]

To which policies are you referring?

So it’s bad for a company to make money? Are you suggesting that there is some tie between gasoline prices and the Bush administration? Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theory believers, but prices are based on the law of supply and demand. The only way the government could lower gas prices is to lower the taxes, which is something that you guys take pot shots at him for anyways.

If we’re going to connect the dots in our “Blame the Republicans for Everything” coloring book, we might as well wonder what the world would be like if Kerry got elected, based on who he got campaign contributions from, right?

By the way, the reason Haliburton got the contract wasn’t because of any ties to the administration…it was because they were the only company that bid on the contract in the first place. They were the only ones who could deliver on the contract. That’s as simple as it gets.

As for the war, everyone supported going in….everyone…Kerry, Clinton, etc. Kerry had access to the same intelligence that Bush had, as did every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican. Just because you have the luxury to flip flop later (never thought I’d have to use that phrase again) when some things come to light that weren’t available before hand (hindsight is always 20/20) doesn’t mean our government, our nation, or our military can. We have a responsibility of finishing what we started, rather than pulling out and ceding Iraq to the militant Islamic terrorists (ie Al-Quaida of Iraq) that we’re fighting against currently.


I agree we needed a damn good reason, and we had one. It just turned out to not be what we expected. And, at the end of the day, if a democracy flourishes in Iraq, so much the better. We're there now, and no amount of protests can make that better. What would you do? Would you not follow through, or would you press ahead? What would you have done differently?

[Frndlefire]

It just turned out to not be what we expected. not what we expected or non-existant? Personally I fully backed this war when I was still under the false impression that, like our leaders told us, these people were an imminent threat to us. That justification seems to have desolved for the spreading democracy and liberating a country from a bad leader approach...

[Thrillhouse]

not what we expected or non-existant? Personally I fully backed this war when I was still under the false impression that, like our leaders told us, these people were an imminent threat to us. That justification seems to have desolved for the spreading democracy and liberating a country from a bad leader approach...

Fair enough. We went to war because we thought he had these weapons and it turns out he didn't.

Since there were no weapons and the war was unjustified, should we let Saddam go and give him the country back?

[TheKOB]

I guess the difference is if you think our leaders were feeding us false stuff in order to get us behind a war (for whatever reason of theirs) or if you think they acted on the best information that they had at the time to do what they thought they should do to uphold their duties of the office which they hold. I (for one) doubt it was the first one...I don't think anyone (democrat or repub) can convince the majority of the voters that he is a good man and then do something like that. The important thing to remember was that everything pointed to the conclusion that our government reached...that tells me something - either there's more truth than fiction, or we were somehow hugely duped. Their intellegence pointed to WMD programs...those programs had existed at some point in time, and all the pieces were available to fire those up once the UN sanctions had lessed (even more under the "oil for food" BS). I seriously doubt Saddam would've let Iran (who they've fought wars against) build nuclear weapons (which they're currently doing) without trying to match it.

It seems that we all agree we can't withdraw our troops now though.

[Frndlefire]

I guess the difference is if you think our leaders were feeding us false stuff in order to get us behind a war (for whatever reason of theirs) or if you think they acted on the best information that they had at the time to do what they thought they should do to uphold their duties of the office which they hold. I (for one) doubt it was the first one...I don't think anyone (democrat or repub) can convince the majority of the voters that he is a good man and then do something like that. The important thing to remember was that everything pointed to the conclusion that our government reached...that tells me something - either there's more truth than fiction, or we were somehow hugely duped. Their intellegence pointed to WMD programs...those programs had existed at some point in time, and all the pieces were available to fire those up once the UN sanctions had lessed (even more under the "oil for food" BS). I seriously doubt Saddam would've let Iran (who they've fought wars against) build nuclear weapons (which they're currently doing) without trying to match it.

It seems that we all agree we can't withdraw our troops now though. I am not saying that we were intentionally "duped." I am just saying that I supported the first war for a specific reason (Bin Laden) and I supported the second war for a specific reason (imminent threat) and I don't now that our justifications have been altered. I completely agree that Powell, Bush, et al. believed in their intelligence. I don't think that, "our leaders were feeding us false stuff in order to get us behind a war (for whatever reason of theirs)." However, I dislike that instead of confronting our failures in these incorrect justifications we just seem to sweep them under the carpet and spin the situation so we don't have to confront our failures. We are the strongest and best country in the nation, we have a lot of power to do a lot of good things, but I think it is very dangerous for us to be so zealous and "patriotic" that we can't admit when we are wrong. A strong leader both takes credit when something good happens and responcibility when something bad happens. You buck up, not blame the intern.

[H-townlaxer]

while i do belive in southern ways, and the confederacy. never ever the nazi, although some of there idea were the most influencial. many goverments fallow idea's made up by nazis

[TheKOB]

I can dig and agree with that. I guess at the end of the day, my main point is that we did a lot of good things by going into Iraq...removed a dictator, hopefully transformed a country that was a problem in a problem region to a solution, and stole a bunch of oil to power my big american SUV....

oops. sorry, shouldn't of said that last part.

Seriously though, hopefully a democratic (and modernized) Iraq will be a stabalizing force in the middle east, and start to bring that region away from religious zealotry...at least at the government level. They have the tools to be a great nation (think Saudi Arabia with a monarchy). Even during Saddam's regime they were one of the richest progressive nations in the Middle East. I'm hopeful they can do even better with a democracy. I'm thinking like the US but with a whole lot more sand, and everyone has a tan. Sorta like Arizona.....

[Longest]

I can dig and agree with that. I guess at the end of the day, my main point is that we did a lot of good things by going into Iraq...removed a dictator, hopefully transformed a country that was a problem in a problem region to a solution, and stole a bunch of oil to power my big american SUV....

oops. sorry, shouldn't of said that last part.

Seriously though, hopefully a democratic (and modernized) Iraq will be a stabalizing force in the middle east, and start to bring that region away from religious zealotry...at least at the government level. They have the tools to be a great nation (think Saudi Arabia with a monarchy). Even during Saddam's regime they were one of the richest progressive nations in the Middle East. I'm hopeful they can do even better with a democracy. I'm thinking like the US but with a whole lot more sand, and everyone has a tan. Sorta like Arizona.....

If we could be so sure, I would back down. But Bush's rhetoric of late belies that: democratizing the world, spreading liberty, etc. Is he going to stop at Iraq or he is not? Who knows? As Frndle pointed out, his refusal to acknowledge that the intelligence turned out poor and we might have made mistakes is worrisome. It tells me he won't hesitate to plunge forward into Cuba and North Korea if he finds anything to run to the media with. And what about countries that are our allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Where does his "mission" stop?

Dan

[Lax101]

It's politics. A politician isn't going to admit that "he was wrong" or that war we just spent billions of dollars on "was a mistake", especially when he's trying to run for office. Sadly, the majority of voters in the country really don't pay attention to the real gritty issues, but instead look at people's images. Kerry was viewed as a spineless flip flopper without a plan, while Bush seemed like "one of the guys" (one of the dumber guys, too). If Bush said in the last year that the war in Iraq was a mistake (being that any of his actions in the last 365 days before the election greatly affected its outcome), he would have been seen as weak, a failure, and even more of an idiot. By sweeping it under the carpet, he seems at least like he knows what he was doing when he went to war.

I guess the blame could go to Bush for having some crappy guys under his administration that falsely told him that Iraq has WMD's. But if any other president was told by his officials that a hostile country has WMD's, they'd probably take some action too. I know that you guys obviously know that it wasn't Bush that just made up some story about Iraq and WMD's, but I really hate when people act like Bush single handedly did everything wrong in the government. If these idiots just listened in their 8th or 9th grade history class, they'd know that the president needs a lot more support and agreement in the house and senate to make these kind of decisions.

[TheKOB]

I think you'd be hardpressed to find any president who ever admits their mistakes, espeically in an election year. To me, yes, I don't like it, but I shrug it off and say "that's politics". If he had admitted it, that would've lost him the election. He really shifted focus to keep us on track. If he admitted it was a mistake (which it was, it's just a question of if you follow through and do what's best for the country affected) would the people of the US do what's right (stay there and fight the good fight) or would public opinion shift towards pulling out? Due to the fickleness of public opinion, we'd probably pull out...especially with attempts to label it (wrongly, in my opinion) "another Vietnam".

To redirect:

I doubt we'll do anything with Cuba. The best course there is just to stop the damn trade boycott.

N. Korea we can't do anything militarily with...it'll be a stalemate until the government falls. China is their big backer...nothing has changed since the Korean War.

Saudi Arabia is an interesting case. Everything I know about it points to the people being content and them being friends of the US ("Everything" was what I read about it in Swartzkophf's autobiography....they seem like nice enough guys).

I'm not too familiar with Egypt. What's the deal there? I thought they were a democracy, although a bad one....

I think the next problem is going to be Israel-Palestine. Anyone got any suggestions?

[Thrillhouse]

After the presidents speech yesterday, I think the next problem is going to be Taiwan. They are going to declare independance and China isn't going to take it lying down. Are we going to get in the middle of that?

[TheKOB]

If China is stupid enough to make a war out of it, we've positioned ourselves so that we have to get involved. I don't think it would come to that though...I doubt China would do anything militarily, since they haven't for awhile. If they truely view Taiwan as a "breakaway province", they sure haven't done anything about it. If the US were like that, South Carolina would be a member of the CSA, and the USA would be calling us a "rebel state" still.

In short, they'll probably raise hell about it, but won't do much in the way of physical action.

If there is a war, that would be trouble for the US, since we're already commited overseas in the M. E.

[Frndlefire]

It's politics. A politician isn't going to admit that "he was wrong" or that war we just spent billions of dollars on "was a mistake", especially when he's trying to run for office. Sadly, the majority of voters in the country really don't pay attention to the real gritty issues, but instead look at people's images. Kerry was viewed as a spineless flip flopper without a plan, while Bush seemed like "one of the guys" (one of the dumber guys, too). If Bush said in the last year that the war in Iraq was a mistake (being that any of his actions in the last 365 days before the election greatly affected its outcome), he would have been seen as weak, a failure, and even more of an idiot. By sweeping it under the carpet, he seems at least like he knows what he was doing when he went to war. I agree and understand, I just find it deplorable that politics has become so much an image and media game and that the common american is so uninvolved and ignorant of what is going on that everything just seems to fall onto, well...are you democrat or a republican? Democrat? go-go socialism and "soft on crime"! Republican? lets go oppress some homosexuals!" I mean, I don't pretend to be a poli sci major and I hardly spend any of my time researching political matters, but whatever happened to having some backbone in government? What happened to standing up for what you believe in and is right rather than scratching someone's back who may help you later or throw some money into your pocket when you retire. It's an issue of power and money, of systematized obedience.

[Longest]

He can admit it now though. He's a lame duck in a sense, he can't be elected again, he loses nothing by being honest with the American people. But my indignation on that goes to both parties, I want the truth. It's not like we can't read between the lines of the spin that gets flung around but I'm tired of the political process existing to perpetuate itself and do nothing of note to solve real problems. Those are ideals the conservatives USED to emobody:fiscal restraint and responsibilty, smaller government, more individual decision-making. And in that sense, the government HAS united, on a front of big, centralized government.

To answer your questions:
Egypt, see http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/egypt.htm
I realize it's from 2003 but I see no evidence things have appreciably changed there internally for the better.

For the Israel/Palestine debate, I'm in no real position to even hazard a guess. I think we should stay out of it more than we do. Especially since we are seen as coming down so often on the Israeli side. Im' not saying terrorism is acceptable from either side, there has been too much killing by everyone. But the holy parts of Jerusalem must be shared and either country that thinks they can "win" by denying their enemy use of these places is deluding themselves. I do'nt think it's a zero-sum game although it might approach that in a few years. I may be wrong but Abbas ascension to chairman of the Palestinian Authority may signal negotiations.

Dan

[Longest]

I agree and understand, I just find it deplorable that politics has become so much an image and media game and that the common american is so uninvolved and ignorant of what is going on that everything just seems to fall onto, well...are you democrat or a republican? Democrat? go-go socialism and "soft on crime"! Republican? lets go oppress some homosexuals!" I mean, I don't pretend to be a poli sci major and I hardly spend any of my time researching political matters, but whatever happened to having some backbone in government? What happened to standing up for what you believe in and is right rather than scratching someone's back who may help you later or throw some money into your pocket when you retire. It's an issue of power and money, of systematized obedience.

It disappeared when people in Congress began to view their election as a career appointment with the bother of having to be reelected every so often rather than as being chosen to go try to effect change before removing oneself gracefully back to private life.

Dan

[Lockbox911]

I think the problem is that the american people don't actually know whats best for them. They think they do, but they don't. The reason we go to war so much is because we fought for our freedom and we feel its everyones right to be free. So we help them.

[Longest]

I think the problem is that the american people don't actually know whats best for them. They think they do, but they don't. The reason we go to war so much is because we fought for our freedom and we feel its everyones right to be free. So we help them.

This is somewhat lacking in convincing evidence. Recent polls have the American people as split on the issue. If you think the administration even consulted popular opinion, think again.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/iraq.poll/
CNN article using the Gallup poll numbers, which most consider the most accurate.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
(Granted that uses a CBS News/NY Times poll and I just don't believe in the impartiality of either anymore, present it for an alternative view).

Dan