Daiwa I think you are just conveniently avoiding the topic, but perhaps you are genuinely that prejudiced against "the Left". :> (oooh that oughta get her going)

"While there are intelligent people who came to their own conclsuions about the Iraq War and came to agree with the War, there are plenty of Americans who came to agree with the War for fairly stupid and uninformed reasons (the same can be said for those who disagree with the war, but that has nothing to do with the Goering quote)."

Oh, I'm sorry, did I miss the part where Toblerone smacked down Lefties here for diverting the conversation towards innumerable topics beyone the quote? Maybe I missed the part where zinkadoodle got reprimanded for the long, asinine description of the word 'neocon'...

And therein lies the problem. The quote isn't put here to discuss and reach some understanding about the human condition, it is put here to equate Bush's rhetoric with Hitler's. To differ is to be immediately off-topic or on a high horse...

You could make the same statement about Dean or other antagonistic, fear-mongering, propaganist Lefties in America, and you could just as easily question their followers' understanding. Instead, we're asked to believe that this isn't a political statement, it's just some method of reaching understanding? Hate and fear and propaganda motivate a LOT of people, and frankly I see a lot more hate and fear on the left. Not that such a thing would EVER be on-topic...

The fact we are forced to only deal with Bush here proves that it isn't about propaganda or intimidation, it is just the standard smear. Keep the words Bush and Hitler in the same sentence as much as possible...

"You seem to feel it is. Can you explain your point of view for why? There are many good arguments for why it is justified, but what are your reasons?"

Heh, *sigh*. I did two or three times previous and was lashed at for not being on-topic. I think you guys only consider "constructive" comments to be the ones you can steer and corral into your own view of where the discussion should go. The moment I start expressing myself politically as zink and others do I'm "off topic".

I think I'll opt out in favor of your scrollbar. My fingers are tired.

The characterization that I am off topic eats at me here.

This is a quote likening Hitler's persuasion toward war with Bush's. This is about Iraq, and people supposedly being mislead into supporting a war they didn't want.

I addressed the reasons for the war, I addressed the quote, I addressed the fact that Bush didn't need to do the things that Goering describes. Toblerone in response tells me that discussing our reasons for going to war with Iraq, the very "propaganda" in question... is off-topic.


That said, go back and look at post #13. Where's the outrage at the personal attacks or off-topic preaching? The truth is this can be diverted in any direction that slams Bush or Bush supporters.

Yet we're supposed to accept it is an objective comparison between Bush and Nazis? Laughable.

Para, how exactly does the re-election prove that the people haven't been dragged along/brainwashed exactly? I'm not saying there aren't Americans who can make legitimate arguments for the Iraq War (although most of those people don't seem to have anything to do with the Bush administration and are more likely to reside at JU) but there has been so much misinformation and so many instances of people buying into it hook, line and sinker, that it must be assumed that Bush's team has studied the rather effective propagandist techniques of Goebbles and Goering. Equally, they probably studied Aristotle, who makes equally effective claims in favour of using manipulative rhetorical techniques.

We were all given ample pros and cons to the war. The Bush administration made its case, the opposition made their case also. To say that no one knew anything except the information presented by the president is to ignore the efforts of everyone on your side of the war argument. Contrary to popular belief, Congress does not have to sit around waiting for word from the White House. Senators and House members all had access to intel from multiple sources, they made their choices based on whatever sources they (and their staffs) consulted. To say they were fed information from the White House, and didn't have any other information is rediculous. Are we to believe that they don't have the internet in Congressional offices?

In the election the people had options. Even though most the campaign rhetoric of both sides seemed to center on the candidates' actions in the early 70s, the war in Iraq was the most pressing current event of the day. I can't speak for all, but for the people I know, no one who is against the war voted for Prs. Bush... even most Republicans I know.

The responses to this article (and to other replies) are an interesting study in the point of your article. However, instead of resonding with well thought out replies, "If you don't agree with me, you are mindless and brainwashed. If you do, you are an enlightened free thinker" seems to be the theme of all your responses to those of us who simply disagree with your point.

To me it is obvious that he is saying Hitler and the German government just did what everyone else does to start a war. He makes a big deal about propaganda and misinformation when it is really the fact that people would be KILLED for opposing them. People didn't lie awake at night fearing propaganda posters.

I have no doubt that they would also kill people who opposed them. Hell they even killed those that were with them when they found out some of them were gay and that sort of thing. I am not saying this was their only tactic just one of them. Force is a last resort to any sort of regime, it is better to have people go with you of their own free will, more true supporters means more power, but of course in the case of the Nazis if you didn't to the line *bang* you're dead.
No they didn't fear the propaganda posters.. The point is the posters are meant to make them far the enemy, or supposed enermy, not the leader

I think the root of all this "hoodwinked" silliness is that people like Toblerone can't fathom anyone differing with them on Iraq. If people do, they must have been fooled, or they must be as evil as Hitler.

No, I think there were a lot of people that believed it without coersion. I don't think everyone was hoodwinked, but I think a lot of people were convinced either by false arguements or by peer pressure. I don't think people who agree with the war are evil, that is a word I don't use lightly. Remember humans are social animals and being really unpopular is something we fear. Guilt and embarrassment are all evolution's little ways of say "fit in, or die".
I just happen to be person that believes there might be better solutions than dropping bombs on people. I think Saddam was a very bad person, but he was only part of the problem. Iraq has always been in a untenable situation with three different groups (Sunis Shiites and Kurds) who hate each other packed into the one nation. Removing Saddam has not solved that basic problem. I think, note I said think, that maybe the war has made a bad situation worse. I'm not sure the country was ready for change, or at least such an abrupt change. Your have to think of ethical cosiderations four dimensionally, not just what will change things in the moment.

The truth is I don't know whether the war will cause more deaths than some sort of natural revolution on the part of the Iraqi people would have, now I guess we will never know. I just feel that sometimes you have to let a society evolve naturally the same way you can't force a person to change. I'm not saying don't intervene at all, just that you need to be careful about how and when you intervene. There is no point, in my view, intervening to save lives i it causes as much or more deaths as the original problem.

Of course I could be wrong about everything. By the way I feel I got little personal and snippy before and I apologise.

I just had a good audition for a play and I'm feeling good. Take care.

The truth is I don't know whether the war will cause more deaths than some sort of natural revolution on the part of the Iraqi people would have, now I guess we will never know. I just feel that sometimes you have to let a society evolve naturally the same way you can't force a person to change. I'm not saying don't intervene at all, just that you need to be careful about how and when you intervene. There is no point, in my view, intervening to save lives i it causes as much or more deaths as the original problem.

Excellent point. One point being made throughout the invasion fiasco is that you cannot impose democracy at the end of a gun. It's doomed to failure. Well, now that we are there, I sure hope that we succeed, but I'm doubtful. And, this has nothing to do with the US soldiers. I have nothing against them. The insurgency is not getting any better, and lives are lost every day on both sides. And, I do hold bush and his bosses totally responsible for all this death and destruction. Saddam was a bastard, no doubt, but bush played right into the taliban and bin laden hand. It's what he wanted, and we just gave it to him. With no real plan, other than "shock and awe". The arrogance of the bushies is appaulling.

The US rush to war, based on nothing but lies and exaggerations was tantamount to criminal. There really was no need for this, particlarly given that Saddam was not the US' most dangerous enemy. This is why I reacted to the Goering statement. As far as I see it, the tactic was very similar to this Nazi, though the US has never, and I doubt will ever resort to that level of horror. I never meant to imply that it would or has. And, this comparison in no way belittles the atrocities that occurred in Europe during the Nazi regime. To say otherwise is just yet another attempt to demonize the opposition. It's bs.

However, I do think that they have resorted to the fascist playbook, given the Patriot Act comparisons, the reliance of religious fervor, the beholding to corporate interests, and the virtual abandonment of the lower and middle classes. That's what fascism means to me. When they can start locking people up for there library book preferences; lock people up for suspicions without any charges pending; demonize their opposition to the extent that they have (we're all Americans, fer cryin' out loud); for the lies and hyperbole that they exhibit daily to protect corporate profits. These all point toward a fascist playbook. I really think they've crossed the line when they start tossing out Constitutional protections to citizens in order to advance their "theories". None of this is anything I find very comforting.

Toblerone, this was not a totally off the mark article, though you certainly were not the first to make this comparison. It really gets everyone out of the woodwork, doesn't it?

I sure hope this site's admininstrators don't buy into your extremely hypocritical bs. Oops, forgot again. You have a patent on the "bs" shortcut. Dammmmmmmmmmm.................

For the last time fool...show me how "BS" is swearing? I have already asked about this from admin and they DO NOT consider this swearing. But for some non-intelligent reason I gues you do. Too bad. And yes I'm saving yours too.

"One point being made throughout the invasion fiasco is that you cannot impose democracy at the end of a gun. It's doomed to failure."

I grew up in West-Berlin and I don't believe you.

In fact, I think your statement is based on a complete ignorance of history.

"invasion fiasco"

Indeed, a fiasco from the point of view of the left.

Millions of Arabs, who the left have claimed are not fit for democracy, have voted in their first free elections. A Kurd has become president of Iraq. Kuwaitis are no longer afraid of their neighbour. Syria and Iran are now both surrounded by countries unfriendly to them.

Lebanon got rid of their Syrian occupation.

And Libya has admitted to having a WMD program and gave it up (and allowed inspections).

What the right don't realise is that this situation is indeed a fiasco. It could potentially be worse than the end of World War II. What if, again, a war against a fascist dictator and the introduction of democracy to a people not used to it, results in a free and wealthy country in peace with its neighbours? It would be disastrous for the left!

Heh, well, if #66 stands as a valid post and my discussion of Iraq was off-topic, I don't see any reason to continue. The idea that this is some kind of rational discussion is pretty much shot. Let the zinkadoodle lie and hate fest continue, and you guys play your nazi game.

It's basically political masturbation. You get a lot of 'hell yeah's' from your camp, but anyone you need to convince is just annoyed or offended. Enjoy.

The US rush to war, based on nothing but lies and exaggerations was tantamount to criminal.

We know this to be untrue, but the left just won't let it go. Even the so-called smoking gun Downing Street memos it turns out, as I suspected they might, are unverifiable fiction - typed up "copies" of the originals, the latter allegedly destroyed to "protect the identity" of the source. They seemed way too tidy and dovetailed just a tad too neatly with the left's prejudicial allegations - they just didn't pass my smell test. But, of course, it's not the veracity of the documents that's important, it's the "issues raised" that matter, as Dan Rather would say.

Cheers,
Daiwa

BS, on the phone last night, Toblerone and I were in fact discussing how off-topic zinkadoodle had been as well. Personally, I simply chose to completely ignore what he had to say because there was so little that had to do with the Goering quote I didn't think it worth bothering. (I don't think Toblerone was nearly as harsh in his judgment). Actually I think even Toblerone has gone a little off-topic by discussing what was appropriate action for Saddam, but far be it from me to tell him how to run this forum ;> Your constant attempts to make it look like Toblerone is equating Bush with Hitler smack of Michael-Moore-standard paranoia.

Para, certainly the Congress had access to enough info (although there has been suggestion from former Australian spies that some of the intelligence on Iraq was "sexed up"), but that is a separate issue from the majority of the population. Those people could have researched it further if they had wanted. But I think we all know that real ordinary Joes don't do that. So many people voted based on misinformation (from both sides of Congress if you need that continually pointed out). I would argue that Bush had a strong part in that misinformation and that he used the tactics identified by Goering to spread it.

Hitler was a Strong leader that demanded all do his bidding

Bush is a strong leader that demands all do his bidding.

Hitler was elected

Bush was elected.

Bush said, soon after the election of 2000, that it would be easier if we had a Dictatorship so long as he was the Dictator!

The comparisons are a bit scarey!

You are welcome to argue that, CS, but you are wrong. The people had ample opportunity to decide for themselves whether they had been "Goeringed" or not, with the help of a mountain of libelous & false accusations from the liberal press, I might add, and despite the Herculean effort of the press to derail him, they saw through the fog of disinformation and returned President Bush to office. Your analogy just doesn't hold. For this reason and many others.

If you are going to argue that Hitler's regime used manipulation, make that absolute control, of the press and the power of the state to help Hitler mislead his people, I could not agree with you more. To say that President Bush used such tactics is ludicrous. He had no control of the press and could not use the power of a police state to silence critics. I can't for the life of me understand how this perverted notion (Bush using "nazi" tactics) gets any consideration, let alone acceptance, by any rational, objective person and your arguments so far are unconvincing at best. I can understand how someone who just viscerally "hates the bastard" ('cause he looks like a chimp?, 'cause he can't speak good?, 'cause he WON?) could delude themselves into thinking so, but that's about it. Clearly, Toblerone is someone who's having a hard time being objective. Passion is all well and good, but it can be self-defeating at times.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Bah.

The problem with this analysis is that the situation described in Hitler's theories on propaganda is functionally identical to what would happen to a nation that truly was under attack.

Churchill understood and used the same propaganda techniques that Hitler did. This leads me to the conclusion that propaganda itself is morally neutral, just like war.

Putting the word out that the country is under attack, and denouncing those that will not fight, is propaganda. If the country isn't actually under attack, then the propagandists have a lot to answer for. But if the country is under attack, the propagandists have a lot to answer for only if they do not practice their trade.

Besides, you don't have to be an Evil Genius to figure out that people are more motivated when they're threatened. Hitler was the first guy to notice this? Give me a break. Today's politicians needed lessons from him, before the understood how to win votes and gain public support? Please don't make me laugh.

---

MONKEY: Hitler did evil, but claimed it was good, and people were fooled!

PANTS: Hey! Our own leaders are claiming they're doing good! They must be doing evil and fooling us, just like Hitler!

MONKEY: Or, they could be making honest claims, and are truly doing good.

PANTS: But they're claiming to do good, just like Hitler claimed to do good!

MONKEY: But...

PANTS: But nothing! They're just like Hitler! You said it yourself!

---