Thread: Hell: "It's a classic tactic-It's one that Hitler used" Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001090

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
Ich kann diese dumme Aussage nicht glauben!
Er [Gerhard Schroeder] braucht seine Hausaufgaben zu machen! Er hat eine Vogel!

Bush is acting like Hitler says German Minister

<img border="0" alt="[Flaming]" title="" src="graemlins/angryfire.gif" />

[ 10. March 2003, 01:14: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
They're having an election, Duchess.

If I recall one of the other candidates is campaigning on a platform of expelling about 8,000 people whom he claims are Muslim militants.

It doesn't sound like it's a pretty campaign.

L.

BTW - historical tangent - The famous quote about having a a short victorious war to distract from domestic difficulties comes from the Russians, not Hitler.

"What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution."

V.K. Plehve, Russian Minister of the Interior
in the run-up to the Russo-Japanese war of 1905

They had their 'short victorious war' with the Japanese, it was short and victorious OK - for the Japanese who won!
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I just read the article. I'm at a loss for words, I'm so appalled.

Sometimes, I wonder why the U.S. stays in NATO. The only real friend we have in Europe is the U.K. (which I consider superior to Europe).

Who gave us Hitler anyway?
 

---

Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on :
 
I'm inclined to , but also. If I ever declare a desire to enter politics, somebody please shoot me.

And Your Grace, yo no comprendo Aleman, please translate! Gracias.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
It's not my mother tongue aber...

quote:

---

Ich kann diese dumme Aussage nicht glauben!
Er [Gerhard Schroeder] braucht seine Hausaufgaben zu machen! Er hat eine Vogel!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
It's not my mother tongue aber...

quote:

---

Ich kann diese dumme Aussage nicht glauben!
Er [Gerhard Schroeder] braucht seine Hausaufgaben zu machen! Er hat eine Vogel!

---

means something like:

I can't believe that stupid expression!
He [Gerhard Schroeder] has to do his homework! He's crazy! ( I think at this point, German people point to their temples, suggesting they have a bat in the bellfry; hence, "he has a bird". My German teacher told me this was highly offensive and that if you made such a gesture to someone on the street you could be arrested!)

PS Liebe Duchess, soll man nicht sagen "Er hat einen Vogel"?

---

Yes, LD, you are probably right! My grammer is atroucious in German...darn indirect objects!

Yeah, it is a dirty election...and they intend to make it painful for die auslander (foreigners) as well. My Highschool German teacher, ,Frau Thom is probably turning over in her grave right now.
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
oh dear...I really messed up the code in that one...pls forgive me hosts.
 

---

Posted by UnShaggy (# 82) on :
 
Latest from BBC website on this story.

UnS
 

---

Posted by Gambit (# 766) on :
 
It is worth bearing in mind that this elction has alredy had a poster banned. One of the main parties (unfortunately, I forget which one) in a campaign to get young people to vote and show they were'hip' and 'trendy' used the slogan

'Today I'll have a shag, tomorrow I'll have a joint, and the next day...I shall vote'!

That would get me voting!
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
(After looking at the BBC photo of the German Justice Minister with a jackboot inserted in mouth)

Geez, she looks like an old clown!
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Yeah, right. The way the woman looks is relevant.

Leaving aside all references to Hitler, here's another look at tactics and the timing of war and elections: Matt Miller's commentary. Miller is a moderate, in case anyone is wondering, and says that Bush is sabre-rattling now because mid-term elections are coming up, but that the real deal will come in two years when Bush is running for re-election.

[fixed code]

[ 20. September 2002, 19:19: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Yeah, right. The way the woman looks is relevant.

Leaving aside all references to Hitler, here's another look at tactics and the timing of war and elections: Matt Miller's commentary. Miller is a moderate, in case anyone is wondering, and says that Bush is sabre-rattling now because mid-term elections are coming up, but that the real deal will come in two years when Bush is running for re-election.

[fixed code]

---

And Bill Clinton bombed the aspirin factory to deflect from the Lewinski debacle. Maybe, maybe not, timing looked suspicious, but who really knows?

If the floppy disk is verifiable, then it's deplorable (and both parties play these games), but it seems to me that the Sadaam issue has been on the burner for a long time. I also submit the possibility of psychological warfare, unsettling him into making mistakes and showing his hand.

Politics, !
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Equinas:
And Bill Clinton bombed the aspirin factory to deflect from the Lewinski debacle. Maybe, maybe not, timing looked suspicious, but who really knows?

If the floppy disk is verifiable, then it's deplorable (and both parties play these games), but it seems to me that the Sadaam issue has been on the burner for a long time. I also submit the possibility of psychological warfare, unsettling him into making mistakes and showing his hand.

---

quote:

---

'Today I'll have a shag, tomorrow I'll have a joint, and the next day...I shall vote'!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]
The Saddam Hussein issue has indeed been on the burner for a long time - the question is, why is the heat being turned up now?

And I doubt he's sensitive enough to be rattled into making mistakes. It bugs the crap out of me that Bush dismissed the Iraqi proposal of inspections without conditions - I can't see why we don't call Hussein's bluff and go in there and start inspecting.

---

I hope because of new and classified intelligence.

Saddam might be paranoid enough, though. I heard something in passing (news channel on while doing other things), that he's now keeping a distance from his Republican Guard (worried about a coup?). I only heard it once, but would be interesting if true. The inspections "without conditions" were only of military sites (or so I've heard), which is a condition. There is apparently much interest in Hussein's multitude of new "palaces" and skepticism about the primary use being habitation. Again, wondering if this is based on classified intelligence.
 

---

Posted by Marshwiggle (# 3018) on :
 
Of course, the unstated irony in this entire thread seems to me this:
Hitler didn't do it.
Evil H did a lot of things, but start a war to take people's attention off his domestic agenda?
The war WAS his domestic agenda.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Excuse me Lifeman, but who has been committing terrorism against who in the Middle East?

If a group of people is trying to massacre as many of your people as they can without good justification, U.N. resolutions kinda go out the window. And heck, Israel not long ago practically handed the West Bank to Arafat on a platter. Look what good it did them.

So I really don't give much credence to whining about treatment of Palestinians. Until they stop supporting terrorism against Israel, they deserve a hell lot more "treatment." Ditto for others who support terrorism.

By the way, some past U.N. resolutions concerning Israel have been flat out anti-semitic. So guess what you can do with them?

I've had it with blaming Islamic terrorism on the U.S. and Israel. Terrorists and their supporters are that way because they are evil people. Got it? Yes, some people are more evil than others.

Whoever wants to flame me, go ahead. This ticks me off so much, I don't give a flip.
 

---

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :
 
I accept some of what you say Mark but if you feel strongly about terrorism, don't forget that Israel was founded on terrorism and that included blowing up innocent civilians. When Begin blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, among the 90 people he killed were 19 Jews! Does'nt that sound a bit like Palestinian suicide bombing (sacrificing your own people as well as other innocents in order to free your country?).

Regarding Baraks offer two years ago, I could'nt understand myself why Arafat would'nt accept the deal until I learned that it was actual not statehood that was on offer. The Palestians are a people just like other indiginous people who basically just want the right to self-determination. Is'nt that what the American Revolutionary War was about?

Over one million Palestinians are living in Israel as second class citizens (I saw this first hand when I stayed in the Arab quarter of Jerusalem). Regarding the few million others who live in the occupied territories, I cannot condonw suicide bombing but I don't know what other options the Palestinians have when there are many Israelis who believe they have a divine right to drive them of the land.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
As this looks like we might be going down the road of Israel, people might find having a look at an earlier discussion on this thread helpful.

Let the hellfire continue.

Nightlamp
Hellhost
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
Ich kann diese dumme Aussage nicht glauben!
Er [Gerhard Schroeder] braucht seine Hausaufgaben zu machen! Er hat eine Vogel!

---

Doch, doch, liebe Duchess. Er hat keinen Vogel.

Heir hab' ich ein kleines Gedicht, das viel ueber klienen George Bush zu sagen hat.

Der Fliegende Frosh

Wenn einer, der mit Muehe kaum
gekrochen ist auf einem Baum,
schon meint, dass er ein Vogel waer',
dann irrt sich der.

Genau.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
(in a redneck voice) SPEAK ENGLISH!!

Seriously, Lifeman, although I still very much disagree with you, I apologize for dumping on you. Your post was kinda the last straw for me on this issue, but unfortunately you had no way of knowing it at the time, heh. Sorry for taking things out on you.

I agree with Nightlamp that it's best we get back on topic. There's probably an Israel thread or two in dead horses anyway.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Just so you know Mark, our current Government is not reflecting the views of the majority of British people at the moment : I don't want to be in NATO either, because I don't wish to be allied to the US
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Merseymike: After all those years of our "special relationship," and this is how you break up with me -- with a two-line "Dear John" letter on a computer bulletin board.

And don't tell me. I know the type. The other country is younger than I am. And more attractive. And agrees with whatever you say. And smiles up at you adoringly no matter what kind of crazy idea comes out of your mouth. And is willing to pick up after you on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly.

It's Canada, isn't it? Don't think I didn't see you two exchange looks behind my back. But don't come running to me when Canada does to you what it did to England.

Men!
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
It's always Canada!

*sings "Blame Canada"*
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
I need you to translate too...I read the literal translation about the tree and I am so lame it makes no sense (but it does rhyme in the mostly logical language of German).

I was locked out of SoF for awhile...need to steady on here...
 

---

Posted by Cuttlefish (# 1244) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
Der Fliegende Frosh

Wenn einer, der mit Muehe kaum
gekrochen ist auf einem Baum,
schon meint, dass er ein Vogel waer',
dann irrt sich der.

Genau.

---

quote:

---

If one, that hardly crept with trouble on a tree, already means that he errs a bird more waer ', then that.

---

quote:

---

If one, that hardly crept with trouble on a tree, already means that it would be a bird, then that errs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
(in a redneck voice) SPEAK ENGLISH!!

---

Boy, howdy, I'll tell ya whut...

howzzat?

===
tex.veg
(not forgetting that at the end of the day, he really is a southern boy after all)
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
You mean the bad guys who ran a dirty America-bashing, Iraq-appeasing campaign won.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Yes, texas veggie, that's better.
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
You mean the bad guys who ran a dirty America-bashing, Iraq-appeasing campaign won.

---

Genau.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

You mean the bad guys who ran a dirty America-bashing, Iraq-appeasing campaign won.

---

quote:

---

I don't want to be in NATO either, because I don't wish to be allied to the US

---

I could say something trite like "We should have let the Germans have you," but I have the feeling that most Britons aren't as violently, back-stabingly anti-American as you...

Zach
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 
Why is it a necessary to suppose that if someone doesn't care to see Iraq bombed into oblivion that they therefore must needs be anti-American?

I can't speak for Britons, because I'm not one. But my desire to see a measured response (and for that matter, young Bush out of the White House) because in fact I do love my native land and I still harbour hope that we owe it to ourselves and our heritage to be better than a bunch of knee-jerk, blinkered bullies.

So there.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Actually, texas.veggie, I think the classification of anti-American had less to do with not wanting to bomb Iraq into oblivion than the statement about not wishing to be allied to the US.

I could be wrong. It would be a first in the history of the universe, but it's within the realm of possibility.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I'd like to call a vote.

By show of hands, please indicate your support of Merseymike's request that he be allowed to secede from NATO and that he should henceforth be considered a non-ally of the United States.

All in favor?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
texas.veggie- I don't recall anyone saying that bombing Iraq into oblivion was in order.

For that matter, please define "measured response," as it seems like a senseless, basically meaningless phrase thrown out to avoid actually saying what needs to be done about Iraq and it muderous dictator.

However, Erin was correct in saying that it's not a support of an Iraq invasion that I was using as the litmus test for Anti-Americanism.

Zach
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Merseymike out of NATO??

*raises hand*
 

---

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :
 
I don't think it's necessarily a case of not wanting to be allied with the US but being allied to a USA that is being run by the moronic George Bush.

Clinton (if he were still in power) I'm sure would not be looking forward to bombing Iraq (probably killing several times the amount of inncoent civilians who died on 9/11 in the process).

I can't help but be amused that Bush talks about Saddam being a dictator when Bush himself was hardly elected democratically.

The best solution would be for both Saddam and Bush to stand down and make way for more able leaders with less blood lust.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Clinton (if he were still in power) I'm sure would not be looking forward to bombing Iraq (probably killing several times the amount of inncoent civilians who died on 9/11 in the process).

---

quote:

---

I can't help but be amused that Bush talks about Saddam being a dictator when Bush himself was hardly elected democratically.

---

Oh, my. The lunatic vibes eminating from your post make my head throb.

quote:

---

The best solution would be for both Saddam and Bush to stand down and make way for more able leaders with less blood lust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lifeman:
Clinton (if he were still in power) I'm sure would not be looking forward to bombing Iraq (probably killing several times the amount of inncoent civilians who died on 9/11 in the process).

---

This would be all well and good except for the fact that, well, you know, he DID.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Oh, and I'll be more than happy to take Merseymike at his word that he doesn't want to be allied to the US, regardless of who the president is. We're not particularly fond of HIM, either.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Lifeman, when did you switch from comedic assessment to stand-up? Your new material's not bad - I mean it's funny and all, but it's been done to death already.

Don't give up on your dream!

scot
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
All right, Lifeman, linking Hussein and Bush like that is on the same level as the German ex-justice minister's comment linking Bush and Hitler.

After your posts on this thread, you're not exactly in a position to call anyone moronic.

I take back my past apology, by the way. I now see you richly deserved what I said and more.
 

---

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :
 
I guess most of you stateside seem to think that Bush is right to go to war with Iraq. Personally, I hope he does'nt because the consequences will effect everyone.

The West has feared ever since Khomeni took over Iran in 1980 that a similar revolution could take place elsewhere in the Gulf. The arab world does'nt generally like Saddam but they hate the West deciding what happens in their own back yard and another Gulf war could be just enough to spark off such a revolution in a country like Saudi Arabia where the ruling regime is decidedly unpopular. Apart from anything else, that's one thing the world economy needs like a hole in the head.

Also, if the West ousts Saddam, it's not as if another regime will just take over. Any puppet regime of The US and Britain will by definition be weak and surrounding countries like Syria and Iran just might seize the opportunity to expand their influence. Israel will certainly feel in a stronger position to intensify it's occupation of the West Bank and the whole region will certainly be less stable.

Yes, Clinton has sanctioned limited attacks against Iraq but a wholesale invasion is quite another matter (especially in terms of numbers of civilian deaths). It was'nt for no reason that US and British led alliance in 1991 decided not to press on to Baghdad. The resultant power vacuum that would have ensued was reason enough then not to oust Saddam. It's reason enough not to go for all out war now.
 

---

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
<snip>
Get back to us on this when you stop reading whatever awful brain washing propaganda you base your ideas on.

Zach

---

quote:

---

I would be embarrassed if I had agreed with you, as you only made yourself and your opinion look like the raving of an uneducated lunatic.

---

*Yawn* It has nothing to do with my education or sanity. I can only provide sane and educated replies to people who give me sensible material to rebutt.

Zach
 

---

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :
 
Zach,

Perhaps my most recent posting might be sane or educated enough for you?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Yes, very much. Good job.

Zach
 

---

Posted by Abo (# 42) on :
 
Back to the opening post:

It's by no means clear, what exactly the German minister of justice said during her talk - neither has she owned up to compairing Bush to Hitler, nor has anybody been willing to testify that she made the comparison. And as an aside, yes, it has been a very ugly election campaign.

Herta Däubler-Gmelin (that's her name, by the way) has by now informed Gerhard Schröder that she will not be available as a minister in his new cabinet. I don't think that this is a statement of guilt, she has simply become too much of a liability to the German-American relations, no matter what she really did say.

Please understand that opinions in Germany about an armed intervention in Iraq are very diverse and more complicated than represented in the media at the moment. After all, our constitution contains the statement that never again must a war be started by Germany and we have a strong peace movement, which was one of the founding elements of the Green party, which is part of our elected government. Also, a lot of people here have very vivid memories of what bombing does to all people in a country - guilty or innocent, most German towns still show the scars of the justified bombing in WW II.

Abo

PS If you ever want to post anything in German and are not sure about words/grammar etc., pm me - I'll gladly help you out.
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
Lifeman and others Brits, I am curious, can you explain away this dualism I see here? You DO know your history, dontcha?
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
"He was an "appeaser," which means he thought he could keep Adolf Hitler happy by giving him treats.."

just a nice sound bite to get y'all to click on the link I provided
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

It was'nt for no reason that US and British led alliance in 1991 decided not to press on to Baghdad. The resultant power vacuum that would have ensued was reason enough then not to oust Saddam.

---

quote:

---

PS If you ever want to post anything in German and are not sure about words/grammar etc., pm me - I'll gladly help you out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
"He was an "appeaser," which means he thought he could keep Adolf Hitler happy by giving him treats.."

just a nice sound bite to get y'all to click on the link I provided

---

quote:

---

It's kind of like feeding an alligator, hoping it eats you last

---

quote:

---

*Yawn* It has nothing to do with my education or sanity. I can only provide sane and educated replies to people who give me sensible material to rebutt.

---

But what does relate to your education, Dear Zach, is that one spells "rebut" with one "t."

It happens to the best of us.

And Lifeman, two points:

1) I, for one, am not convinced that an invasion is appropriate at this time, but I think it's erroneous to characterize GWB as "looking forward to bombing Iraq" due to "blood lust."

2) And with regard to the election, even Americans who didn't vote for him (and count me in that majority) think the "he's not democratically elected" argument is way past its sell-by date. We have a process that is mandated constitutionally and statutorily. It was followed. I don't like the result and I disagree with SCOTUS' rationale, but it's the law of the land. Equating the electoral process that gave Americans George W. Bush to the process that gave Iraqis Saddam Hussein is Beneath the Valley of the Planet of the Absurd.

And Clintonista that I am, let me add that Zach and others are absolutely right on his position on this issue.

Next.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
"He was an "appeaser," which means he thought he could keep Adolf Hitler happy by giving him treats.."

just a nice sound bite to get y'all to click on the link I provided

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
Lifeman and others Brits, I am curious, can you explain away this dualism I see here? You DO know your history, dontcha?

---

Thank goodness my browser shows the URL when I hover the pointer over a link - kept me from clicking on Rush Limbaugh's site.

duchess, you don't expect people to pay attention to Rush, do you? I refer of course to sensible people who are seeking something other than confirmation of their own prejudices.
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
Pardon me, I have not been aware of the threads about how Neville Chamberlain and Kofi Annan do or do not have dualistic views, or anything about Neville Chamberlain...I am not being sarcastic here. I have not seen anybody else bring it up, and did not honesly mean to rub your nose it it (yes, I put up the devil symbol but that was with the naiive feeling nobody else had brought it up in here...well, this very thread).

Since sensible people are not willing to click on a Rush Limbaugh link, and Lord knows SoF is full of those , I have provided here the bullet points from the article that I wanted to bring up:

*Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described the appeasing of terrorists this way, "It's kind of like feeding an alligator, hoping it eats you last." Rummy has learned the lessons of history. The UN has not. Kofi Annan is waving that letter from Iraq around just the same way that Chamberlain waived the deal with Hitler.

*The United Nations, the Arab League and SecGen Annan think they moved the world. They anxiously claim the mantle of peacemaker for convincing Iraq to open up the doors to inspectors, just as Chamberlain did. Of course, a few months after Hitler signed that piece of paper, he invaded Poland. [and replaced him with Winston Churchill]

*That's why the White House rejected the Iraqi offer with these clear, unmistakable words: "This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions. This is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action. As such, it is a tactic that will fail. It is time for the Security Council to act."
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
Pardon me, I have not been aware of the threads about ....Neville Chamberlain.....I have not seen anybody else bring it up....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
Since sensible people are not willing to click on a Rush Limbaugh link, and Lord knows SoF is full of those , I have provided here the bullet points from the article that I wanted to bring up:

---

Um.. I think you took Ruth too literally. Why would sensible people give a flying fig about anything Rush Limbaugh has to say? He has never proven to be a reliable source. I'd suggest perhaps doing a google search and noting how many sites document his misquotes, false figures, shady statistics.. well, you do get the idea, I hope.

Sieg
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Well, Limbaugh is certainly not inerrant. However, he has had a knack for focusing on stories and getting them right long before the national media here.

As to Nevelle, his spirit is indeed alive and well in Europe and the U.N. I hope, because of Bush's backbone, we don't have to find out how dangerous this current appeasment is.

"Peace in our time. Peace in our time."
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
In all fairness, a person is not always wrong because some do not like him. I noticed nobody is trying to blow away the points. I am more interested in that than why Rush sux rocks.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
As to Nevelle, his spirit is indeed alive and well in Europe and the U.N. I hope, because of Bush's backbone, we don't have to find out how dangerous this current appeasment is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cuttlefish:
Wood, I'm not sure how your argumentation works there. Are you saying that because Mark the P misspelt Neville that his points are not valid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Everyone who thinks military intervention is appropriate is NOT a bloodlusting warmonger. Conversely, everyone who thinks that it is inappropriate is NOT an ass-kissing appeaser.

---

That's my closing statement.

Get informed before you spout your crypto-fascist crap.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
My final comments:

MarkthePunk and duchess are bloodlusting warmongers!

Merseymike and Lifeman are ass-kissing appeasers!

Nyah, nyah, nyah!

<scot skips merrily away to fiddle while Rome burns>
 

---

Posted by Lifeman (# 579) on :
 
I'd just like to say a prayer for the Iraqi people who are bound to have more needless suffering forced upon them by the West.

 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Wood, you called me a moron and said I'm talking bollocks. Yet you didn't in any way say how I'm incorrect. If you disagree, why didn't you just say how and back it up?

And there HAS been appeasement. How about the oil for food program for starters. Yeah, like all that oil money goes to help hungry Iraqis. Uh huh.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Oh, more crap from Lifeman. Iraqis suffer because of Hussein. Geez.
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
I ask just one more to that somebody to refute the actual bullet points of thought I brought up, and try to put aside their offense at Rush just for one moment.

I will try to paraphrase once more into a more concise statement and ask:

How is the UN acting compared to Chamberlain's situation?

If you answer that question with facts and figures , I promise to listen to you, even if you call me a bloodlusting warmonger.

My work is done here and will not post again in this particular thread. Good day.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
This thread is one massive violation of Godwin's Law and every variant ever conceived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Wood, you called me a moron and said I'm talking bollocks. Yet you didn't in any way say how I'm incorrect. If you disagree, why didn't you just say how and back it up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lifeman:
Erin,

I totally agree with your last posting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
....

Since Wood & Tomb keep bringing up "there are other threads [re: Chamberlain/Appeasement/NATO I am assuming]....

---

quote:

---

I am wondering if it may not be time to craft the Neville Chamberlain corollary to Godwin's Law (that the first person to mention Hitler automatically loses the argument):

Is it Appeasement; or is it Prudence? Inquiring minds want to know.

---

quote:

---

duchess went on:
I did do a search on the word Chamberlain and took the time to read through 3 threads and commented on one. My request is that we continue here? I don't want to step in, get my feet wet, and then have this very thread closed by Tomb on his right to closed anytime he sees fit, alright?

---

Seems like a good idea to me. We'd all certainly hate for you to be thwarted in your foot-wetting endeavors by my capriciousness.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Appeasement -

Germany took a hiding in the treaty negotiations after Versailles. It lost substantial bits of territory which it wished to reclaim.

In the post war years, it was German policy to reclaim these territories. It also became German policy to seek to annex ethnic german communities around them as parts of Germany.

To many people this didn't seem unreasonable - hence appeasement - letting the Germans get on with their unification policy.

The famous Munich agreement supposed to herald 'peace in our time' allowed Hitler to annex only the German speaking regions of Czechoslovakia - not the rest.

When Hitler broke this agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia his cover was blown. Chamberlain tore up the treaty and instantly issued guarantees to the Poles that Britain would fight if they were invaded. (Even whilst negotiating Munich, Chamberlain was re-arming Britain)

Now for this to have a parallel with Iraq we'd need to be assenting to Saddam occupying more and more territory on the grounds that there were Iraqis living in it who wanted to be reunited with Baghdad and that this was not unreasonable.

I don't think Kofi Annan is proposing that, is he?

In fact, he's got an undertaking that the UN can resume arms inspection (a process that was effective enough that the Iraqis were desperate to stop it).

So rather than being like appeasement ("Ok Adolf, if you say you only want to re-unite all germans into one big happy family, you can, but don't go any further") this would actually have been more like Chamberlain saying

" OK Adolf we know you're re-arming, we want to send people in to destroy all your Messerschmitts and new pocket battleships"

To which Adolf replies

"OK It's a fair cop, let them in!"

We now have to see whether they get in or not.

In my opinion the two situations are not really comparable!

L.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Lifeman, I think there's going to be a war regardless. I'd rather we take it to Iraq now than have something worse than 9-11 later.

And Hussein has already used chemical weapons -- repeatedly. And it's well documented that he is darn close to pure evil and has strong ties to terrorists. That's enough proof for me of his willingness to use them or pass them on to his terrorist buddies to use them. Surely you don't think he's manufactured them for defense.

On the appeasement issue, I think much of our disagreement (with Erin, Wood, etc.) involves different definitions. I looked it up in my American Heritage dictionary. I think I'm using the word accurately, but concede the pre-WW2 events are more clearly appeasement. (Sorry I don't have a proper mammoth Oxford dictionary big enough to kill rats with.)

Seeing that this is at least bordering on "wrangling about words" I'm willing to let the appeasement thing drop and mud wrestle about other matters.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I go off for a happy morning of music and barbeque and what do I find when I come back?

Lifeman agreeing with Erin. MarkthePunk giving up on wrangling about words. duchess baiting tomb. Merseymike not saying anything.

What the hell is wrong with you people?!?!
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Lifeman, I think there's going to be a war regardless. I'd rather we take it to Iraq now than have something worse than 9-11 later.

---

quote:

---

"War is God's way of teaching geography to Americans." Ambrose Bierce.

---

If that's true then your education systems is completely shot

And to follow your other line of arguement, there's no point in trying to make up for being late for the last two world wars by starting the next one.

The only things that going to war in the Middle East will achieve are:

- a complete destablisation of the region

- a stand off between the "Christian West" and the "Muslim East"

- more attempts to reduce Israel to a lump of strawberry jam on the map

and lastly

- more 9/11's in the USA and elsewhere.

Which strikes me as a rather high price. There is no hard evidence in what's been presented so far to show that Saddam intends to use the weapons for anything except ensuring he remains in power. The "fear factor" if you like. But going to war against him might make him change his mind ...

Besides, wasn't the whole point of the "War on Terror" to catch Bin Laden and bring him to justice... And he is where exactly?!

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
The only things that going to war in the Middle East will achieve are:

- a complete destablisation of the region

- a stand off between the "Christian West" and the "Muslim East"

- more attempts to reduce Israel to a lump of strawberry jam on the map

and lastly

- more 9/11's in the USA and elsewhere.

---

I think the first three have already been achieved.

Moo
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Logician, you are logical indeed. Perceptive post. Glad to see you in Hell, er, I mean on this board.
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
The only things that going to war in the Middle East will achieve are:

- a complete destablisation of the region

- a stand off between the "Christian West" and the "Muslim East"

- more attempts to reduce Israel to a lump of strawberry jam on the map

and lastly

- more 9/11's in the USA and elsewhere.

---

I think the first three have already been achieved.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by logician:
In that 50 years, and most especially in the last 10, we have had the ability to install puppets anywhere we wanted and have not done so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Tubbs...

I am not sure that I agree with your conclusions. (Okay, I disagree with them.) It is just as likely that military action will secure Israel's right to exist, stabilize the region, and end the false dichotomy of a Christian West and Muslim East, in addition to preventing any more repeats of 9/11. The trick is that it has to be done RIGHT.

Now, I haven't made up my mind about the military intervention yet, though with each passing day I am a slightly more convinced of its necessity. The precise reason why I haven't made up my mind yet is because I don't possess all the facts. It seems to me there are only two logical choices here:

1. If you're a pacifist, (the general) you object to military intervention on the grounds that all violent solutions are inherently wrong; or,
2. If you're not a pacifist, you simply don't have the information necessary to form a definitive conclusion.

The general public not seeing the evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Usually, public evidence comes in the form of, say, Pearl Harbor. I'd rather not have that evidence.

---

Disagreeing with me is allowed

But if past performance is any indicator of future success, the only thing that military intervention is going to do is really balls things up. Countries seem to find it much easier to make war rather than create a successful peace afterwards.

Agree about the point of Pearl Harbour. But it also brings to mind another point. The main imputus for the USA joining WWII was the bombing of Pearl Harbour by the Japanese. It can be argued that the USA would have left the rest of the world to it if they hadn't been directly affected. (And I wouldn't be here Or if I was I'd probably be living in a Iron curtain style country run by Nazis with no computer Or imprisoned due to my subversive Christain faith. Either way, I wouldn't be talking to you)

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

It can be argued that the USA would have left the rest of the world to it if they hadn't been directly affected.

---

Hey, look up the "Lend-Lease Act" before you say that.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Lend-Lease.html

The United States was basically sending Britain free aid and weapons to stand up to the Nazis.

Zach
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

It can be argued that the USA would have left the rest of the world to it if they hadn't been directly affected.

---

Hey, look up the "Lend-Lease Act" before you say that.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Lend-Lease.html

The United States was basically sending Britain free aid and weapons to stand up to the Nazis.

Zach

---

quote:

---

There was very little free about it ... Over the next few years the British government repaid $650 million of the $50 billion that the US govt of the time gave to 38 nations.

---

The British government repaid $650 million..... but was lent $35 billion.

Wow, lemmee help you get that foot out of your mouth there...

Zach

You want the source? I got yer source right here...

http://aj.encyclopedia.com/html/l1/lendleas.asp
 

---

Posted by Eldo (# 1861) on :
 
[tangent]

lend lease was set because America deemed it vital to american defense to supply these arms.

From Zach's link:

quote:

---

for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States

---

I'd call that directly affecting the interests of the US, wouldn't you?
[/tangent]

Out of interest, does anyone know where the dossier provided to parliament is on the web - I haven't had a chance to go hunting about for it yet (read too lazy to do it myself here ).




{closed a UBB tag}

[ 25. September 2002, 15:51: Message edited by: tomb ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

I'd call that directly affecting the interests of the US, wouldn't you?

---

quote:

---

Out of interest, does anyone know where the dossier provided to parliament is on the web

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

There was very little free about it ... Over the next few years the British government repaid $650 million of the $50 billion that the US govt of the time gave to 38 nations.

---

The British government repaid $650 million..... but was lent $35 billion.

Wow, lemmee help you get that foot out of your mouth there...

Zach

You want the source? I got yer source right here...

http://aj.encyclopedia.com/html/l1/lendleas.asp

---

Not wishing to turn this into "War of Independence - Ship of Fools Rerun" but ... The reference you so thoughtfully provided states, in the opening sentence:

[Lend-lease] arrangement for the transfer of war supplies, including food, machinery, and services, to nations whose defense was considered vital to the defense of the United States in World War II .

Emphasis mine. So that'll be for purely unselfish motives then ...

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Eldo (# 1861) on :
 
Well apart from blatant inability to type / ('pologies to the hosts) I've found the full dossier here:

BBC Full html version (minus some piccies) and link to pdf
 

---

Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 
The entry in Hansard for 28th February 2002 includes the information that the entirety of the lend-lease loans will have been paid off at the end of 2006.

In any case, the passing of the lend-lease act did allow Roosevelt to help the UK to improve its defences whilst placating U.S. isolationism. Whether the determined action of a president or the majority view in the other branches of government better represents the U.S. I honestly couldn not vouch. It is worth noting that the terms of lend-lease were also engineered to improve U.S. access to markets over which Britain had a strong influence, so economically it was not a straightfoward lease either.

In any case, as recently in Europe, decisions re. intervention versus support are eternally complex and are often easier to pontificate over in retrospect than wisely arrive at in advance.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
There is no hard evidence in what's been presented so far to show that Saddam intends to use the weapons for anything except ensuring he remains in power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
*sigh*

You know, I am just about as tired of hearing "the British/French/whoever should fall on their knees and lick our boots" as I am of hearing "the US government is only in it for the oil". Both statements are breathtakingly naive and show an appalling lack of knowledge of social and military history. Is it at all possible to discuss the current situation without dragging up the sins and heroic deeds of sixty years ago?

---

Probably not. This is giving me a headache and making me grumpy so I'm going to read some other threads before I completely lose it ...

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Erin, to answer your question -- "No."

(Although even I didn't expect the Lend-Lease Act to come up, heh.)
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
well as i've said elsewhere, my main concern in this whole thing is what we would do with iraq after we've removed hussain. and aparently i am not alone in this:

worries about a post-war iraq
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
*sigh*

You know, I am just about as tired of hearing "the British/French/whoever should fall on their knees and lick our boots" as I am of hearing "the US government is only in it for the oil". Both statements are breathtakingly naive and show an appalling lack of knowledge of social and military history. Is it at all possible to discuss the current situation without dragging up the sins and heroic deeds of sixty years ago?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
*sigh*

You know, I am just about as tired of hearing "the British/French/whoever should fall on their knees and lick our boots" as I am of hearing "the US government is only in it for the oil". Both statements are breathtakingly naive and show an appalling lack of knowledge of social and military history. Is it at all possible to discuss the current situation without dragging up the sins and heroic deeds of sixty years ago?

---

quote:

---

You know, I am just about as tired of hearing "the British/French/whoever should fall on their knees and lick our boots"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

You know, I am just about as tired of hearing "the British/French/whoever should fall on their knees and lick our boots"...

---

I apologize if it seemed I was giving that argument. I hate the as much as you.

I was merely replying to the comment that the United States only cares about its own interests.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:


That said, I fail to see what the US or the UK stand to gain through military intervention, other than (if done correctly) a reasonable amount of security against further attacks on western civilians. We're not getting money, land or oil, so our motives are hardly financial. (snip) If someone has a better idea, by all means, post it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:
liberal "Peace First" hankie-squeezer

---

First it's Tommy's burgers on the all but defunct Proud to be an American thread, now it's this. No, really, I'm not following you around Hell, applauding. It just seems like it.

But I'm seriously thinking about adopting the above line as my sig.
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
I lied about the not posting thing ...

Euro-weenies ...

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Euro-weenies ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Ordinarily, I eschew posting links to other websites because I believe God gave Google to us for a reason.

---

And that reason would be Resources for Hell, as we all know.

I love the Boondocks, which will surprise no one.
 

---

Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
texas.veggie, I can hear the sputter and see the rolling of eyes from here. The challenge: what governments are you identifying as American-installed puppets. It's so easy to make the accusation. Beware, beware that idea which everyone around you assumes to be true. It is behind that bush that the fox hides.

Erin, if I am implicated in the whole British/French lick our boots thing I apologize. Clarifying may make it worse, but I'll have a try. The British should certainly not be licking our boots or anyone else's for their actions in WWII. They held the fort for two years with a few planes and a lot of intelligence, and we were very slow to help.

The French should lick our boots, or somebody's, because it's just a great visual.

Since 1950 or so, however, Europe has not provided its own defense. That is not an accusation but an observation. I think Europe is worse off for this, but I don't think it hurt the Americans until recently, as it has gradually emerged that our natural allies no longer have a clue what makes the world work.

There is this odd template that Europe and America are on the same road to civilization, but the Europeans are just a few miles further along waiting for us to catch up. Question that template. If you want to pursue it with someone smarter than I am, Johan Goldberg has a nice column on the subject (and he's funny.)

For tomb and chastmastr -- I went to the link and tried Boondocks.

You must be kidding me. When I wrote for an underground newspaper 30 years ago (I wasn't the editor. I don't think any of us were the editor.) we used to reject strips like that even when we agreed with them. "Flagee?" Come on.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Well, Flagee and Ribbon only show up when the strip gets a lot of flak from people; the art is usually much better, which may even be part of the point. I think it's back to normal again now. This is what it's usually like.

David
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by logician:
...
You must be kidding me. When I wrote for an underground newspaper 30 years ago (I wasn't the editor. I don't think any of us were the editor.) we used to reject strips like that even when we agreed with them. "Flagee?" Come on.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0