Re: Senator, you're no Hitler (no Who)

[Alan McKendree <amck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:45:43 -0800 (PST)
> From: Zenswhen <bushchoked@yahoo.com>
>
>  >Neither was Hitler...until he was.
>
> There's just no comparison,
Of course there is, and I've alluded to it before.  Both rose to 
power under the mentorship of a leader whom they discarded once they 
were powerful enough. Both committed murder of their political rivals 
by the dozens within their own party. Both created special 
subdivisions of the military to protect themselves against the 
regular military.  Both established dictatorships within their own 
country and eventually launched full-scale attacks on their neighbors 
to acquire territory.  Hussein was defeated in his land grabs, but 
even this could be seen as his ambition overreaching his power, 
analogous to Hitler's temporary setback of the Beer Hall Putsch.

> except that the US sees both [Hitler and Hussein] as enemies.
As do I.  Apparently you don't. Apparently you're not going to be persuaded.

>  >it, I mentioned it as a direct factual refutation of your claim that
> Iraq had only attacked Kuwait.
>
> Since we sanctioned and funded and fully supported it, I'd be hard 
> pressed to call that the same as Iraq attacking Kuwait in any way.
Nonsense.  Hussein has free will.  Regardless of our alleged (but 
unsubstantiated) encouragements, he was always free to choose to 
invade or not. Even if we or some other country made it easier for 
him, he was only acting on what he already wanted to do.  He 
certainly doesn't seem to be so accommodating to our wishes NOW, when 
they don't coincide with his.

>  >[In April 1991, Glaspie] said she was the victim of "deliberate
> > deception on a major scale,
> Yes, and Clinton denied having sex with Monica. Your point?
<cough> Even if you reflexively dismiss Glaspie's statement as a 
tissue of lies -- to repeat -- and I remind you this came from YOUR 
OWN SOURCE -- TARIK AZIZ GAVE GLASPIE SOME VINDICATION. HE SAID SHE 
HAD NOT GIVEN IRAQ A GREEN LIGHT.  Are you going to claim Tarik Aziz, 
an Iraqi government official, is lying in a conspiracy to 
rehabilitate April Glaspie's reputation?

> There are more immediate threats, but we're going to "live with 
> them" according to the administration (speaking of N. Korea). Funny 
> how some things are more important than others, when rationality 
> says otherwise.
Oh, balls.  Rationality does not say everything's as important as 
everything else.  And since you seem to be frothing to declare war on 
North Korea, just be patient.  Maybe after Bush takes care of this 
war he can fight yours.

>  >doubt that clearing him out will be a deterrent to other terrorist
> attacks on the U.S., and NOT taking action against him will be an
> encouragement to same.
>
> Can't imagine WHY you'd think that, when all evidence is to the contrary.
Funny, I could say the same thing about your thinking it's better to 
ignore a power-lusting murderer.

> We know from the 9/11 terrorists living in the US that democracy and 
> freedom will not sway them, and that when we mess with them it 
> always makes them fight back harder. Of course, here lately there's 
> very little freedom and democracy in the US either.
Yeah.  Very little freedom and democracy in the US at all.  Barely 
any.  I'm amazed you can keep yourself from fleeing to Iraq.  Or 
China.  Or Cuba.  Or Korea (North, of course).  Or Rwanda.  Or...

> There is currently no shred of evidence linking the Saddam and 
> Laden, who in fact hate each other.
I've heard they hate each other, but they are united in their hatred 
of America.

>  >I think getting rid of Hussein is
> necessary to demonstrate to any terrorists that not even God can save them
>
> Yet we know they don't learn from that sort of "lesson" but instead 
> it gives them more reason to attack us. They don't think in ways you 
> and I might call reasonable...
That doesn't matter, ultimately.  I think they, and you , and I would 
all be better off if they DID think rationally, but as long as they 
don't pose a threat to America (and yes, that means in the judgement 
of whoever happens to be in the White House), then let them pound 
sand, discover the Unified Field Theory, or do whatever else makes 
them happy.

>  >Apparently you don't see the irony of citing this quote in the
>
> There is no irony. We are the ones initiating violence here.
No. Hussein initiated violence long ago against his own people. And 
any country which recognizes individual rights has the moral right to 
retaliate against him in the name of those people. Whether to 
actually do it or not is simply a practical question of whether it's 
in the free country's own interest to do so, and in Bush's judgement, 
it is.  I'm glad his judgement coincides with mine.  You, of course, 
are upset that it doesn't coincide with yours.

>  I don't see the US going after every petty dictator who is 
> oppressing his people (of which there are many), so that's not the 
> reason.
Apparently you DO want the US to declare war on every dictatorship 
simultaneously.  I'm glad Bush is more moderate in his views.

> In fact, the US apparently sanctioned it until now when suddenly we 
> need a reason to go to war.
We were given a reason on 9/11/2001.  I'm surprised you'd need a reminder.

>  >May we deduce that if you walked in on someone
> raping your daughter you would try to talk him out the door rather
> than join the ranks of the incompetent?
>
> That's an extremely poor analogy. For one thing, as you mention, I 
> wouldn't be initiating violence but defending against it. Iraq has 
> committed NO violence against the US (or anyone).
Your argument approaches the Big Lie theory of rhetoric...just repeat 
a blatant falsehood often enough, and eventually people will believe 
it. As above: Hussein rose to his present position over the dead 
bodies of his real and potential rivals, then his political enemies, 
including Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaitis, a few Americans, and some 
thousands of Kurds. Again, I'm surprised you overlook this, and I'm 
surprised that you cling to the belief that as long as someone, 
anyone, told Hussein to kill his neighbors that means he doesn't 
really attack them when he does.

> Shouldn't we go after China first, for instance, because they're 
> killing their own and (at least) shot down one of our spy planes, 
> which could at LEAST be called an act of aggression? No? I wonder 
> why...
Well, for one thing, China has four times the population of the U.S. 
Does NOT declaring war on China reveal some sinister conspiracy to 
you?  Would dropping the current campaign against Iraq like a hot 
rock and declaring open war on China make you happier?  If not, again 
I really don't see your point.

Cheers,
--
Alan
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
                                 Isaac Asimov
"Come on.  Seriously.  Stop setting my house on fire. Hey guys..."
                                        -- Mark Leaman, paraphrased