Bush Admin. students of Nazi propaganda tactics?

all systems are the same, they just use a different name

Published on June 19, 2005 By Toblerone In Politics

The quote speaks for itself:

Comments (Page 9)

121

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2005

Beyond creating mistrust and fear, I don't see much point in associating someone with a Nazism. You aren't making them look more warm and cuddly...

122

-----

on Jun 23, 2005

Wasn't trying to sidetrack you at all, rather get back to your original topic. You appear to have a rigid mind so "sidetracking" is apparently not possible, anyway. You didn't bother to take my post in toto and digest it in context, so I'm just as done with you as you appear to be with me.

Ciao.

Daiwa

--Two things, 1) are you from italy daiwa? If so, where? I have a friend that lives in Torremaggiore 2)were you talking to me, or bakerstreet?

123

-----

on Jun 23, 2005

Beyond creating mistrust and fear, I don't see much point in associating someone with a Nazism.

--that is unless they follow nazism, like your local Knights brotherhood, and KKK "political" party/groups....in my home town,up to about 1983, there was a very large, very active KKK klan... not good!

124

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2005

Well, but in those cases you'd WANT to create mistrust and fear, right?

125

-----

on Jun 23, 2005

Yep,BS....(Kinda funny that your initials are 'BS' have gotten fooled in some posts when some had put BS, which i though they were saying bull shit, but they were talking to you...*shakes his head* ) LOL

126

Toblerone

on Jun 23, 2005

D: Wasn't trying to sidetrack you at all, rather get back to your original topic.

Well my original topic was about whether Bush's rhetoric was similar to the ones used in Goering quote.

D: so I'm just as done with you as you appear to be with me.

toblerone: I'm quite willing to continue if you stick to the original topic. I think the justification for war is a seperate issue from the rhetoric and it deserves its own seperate discussion since frankly I haven't really thought through it yet. I don't have anything against you.

Dr. B --Thats because so many of them seem to be the same; "Blah blash, bash bush,etc..." I could count off almost 5 right now

Toblerone: Well that's pretty much the same logic racists use to discriminate against people. Those 5 people aren't me so why judge me based on them.
Dr. Bailey are you Bakerstreet under another pen name? If not would you let him argue for himself because that comment wasn't even directed at you. If you are him would you please identify yourself as such so I know who I am talking to.

Dr. Bailey: , there are those who IMO are a lot nicer, and that i enjoy debating with, the others......

Toblerone: Now you are getting personal. I have merely reflected the tone of the replies sent to me. If I get arrogant, condescending and sarcastic comments I send an similar reply back. Gee what a concept: if someone is rude to me I'm rude back! I don't mind people having different opinion than me but my opinion was attacked first (not debated against I might add) and for the most part they weren't even opinions I actually held!

I'm just getting frustrated, here is debate in summary so far:

ME: Hastily write post a Quote + inflammatory headline = lots of angry people. (at this point I exit to finish an essay for uni due the same day not thinking about how the inflammatory headline would be misterpreted)

others: You callled Bush a Nazi! (insert something that is implictly insulting to me here)

Me: No, I just think he used similar rhetorical techniques. (attempt to clarify my position after realising how people might interpret the headline)(insert jibe to get them back for insulting me)

O: So you think Bush is a Nazi just because he used same rhetorical tactics. That's like saying hippies and Nazis are the same because the both use toothbrushes.

Me: No I'm just saying he used the same rhetorical techniques. I think ethics and rhetorical techniques are two different things.

O: But some people will make that link.

Me: Probably but that is not my intention.

O: Yes it is.

Me: No it isn't

O: Yes it is times infinity plus one.

Me: Err, no... IT....ISN'T!

O:(random stuff about the justification for war)

Me: (me getting sucked into the arguement then later pointing out it wasn't connected to my original topic)

O: (Them trying to convince me it was my point)

Me: (me trying to convince them it wasn't)

O: (Them calling me rigid, arrogant etc. for not agreeing it was my point. as if I don't know my own mind, and basically saying I was not sucked off topic I was merely debating the issue I set out to all along)

So here we are, do you think that might get a little annoying after a while? If people decide to debate me on the topic I am happy to continue. If you think you know what topic I wanted to debate better than I do then I suggest they get treatment for delusions of mind-reading.

I apologise to anyone I have insulted but only on the understanding that you get what you dish out.

Toblerone

127

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2005

Then what is the end result to likening Bush to Nazis rhetorically? What judgement are we supposed to base on that, if not to associate Bush with Nazism?

I mean, do we say, "Wow, Bush sounds like a Nazi!" and not make a moral equation? Do you really think people won't?

Of course you do, which is why you posted it.

128

-----

on Jun 23, 2005

--I haven't been dishing out anythig Toblerone...i apologize if i have, i never realized it, if you would show me where, we could discuss it...

--and whoever said:

Dr. Bailey are you Bakerstreet under another pen name? If not would you let him argue for himself because that comment wasn't even directed at you. If you are him would you please identify yourself as such so I know who I am talking to.

--I am not BakerStreet, I was also known as Lucas Bailey before...then i changed my nn as i am know a professor at U/Arizonia...

129

-----

on Jun 23, 2005

mean, do we say, "Wow, Bush sounds like a Nazi!" and not make a moral equation? Do you really think people won't?

Of course you do, which is why you posted it.

--Not necessarily, some might not care...

130

Toblerone

on Jun 23, 2005

Then what is the end result to likening Bush to Nazis rhetorically? What judgement are we supposed to base on that, if not to associate Bush with Nazism?

First things first AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!

Now that I've got that out of the way. No, it was just meant to be a discussion about how different sorts of leaders manipulate people in similar ways. I'm sorry if I have higher intellectual aspirations than getting people to draw false associations. I'm sorry I can't be a stupid as the people you would like to compare me to. Shall I take out my brain and try this again?

Don't ascribe to malice what can merely be ascribed to thoughlessness on my part.

In the words of George Jetson "Jane! Get me off this crazy thing!" (and no, I am not wishing to associate myself with furturistic cartoon families or Hanna Barbera).

(goes off to play "Head versus Wall" for real)

131

Toblerone

on Jun 23, 2005

I haven't been dishing out anythig Toblerone...i apologize if i have, i never realized it, if you would show me where, we could discuss it...

--and whoever said:

Dr. Bailey are you Bakerstreet under another pen name? If not would you let him argue for himself because that comment wasn't even directed at you. If you are him would you please identify yourself as such so I know who I am talking to.

--I am not BakerStreet, I was also known as Lucas Bailey before...then i changed my nn as i am know a professor at U/Arizonia...

I fucked up the quote thing earlier and put quotes within quotes accidently.

Yeah Dr. Bailey I just got confused because you replied to something that I had directed at Bakerstreet. Now, I'm not sure which of your comments were actually directly at me. Anyway apology excepted if the thing about me not being nice was directed at me....I'm confused.

132

Chakgogka

on Jun 23, 2005

Only a few weeks out from election time a group of Australian comedians travelled to the USA to ask the people on the street ... if they supported Bush's stance on Kyrgyzstan... In case you are wondering, Kyrgyzstan doesn't exist.

Excuse me, but Joe Public in Mainstreet, USA may not be the only under-informed people here. LOL Kyrgyzstan most certainly does exist.

One of the former Soviet Republics, it has been an independent nation since 1991 and recently made the news because of political unrest resulting in the deposing of President Akayev in April of this year.

As to the Bush administration's policy towards this 'non-existent' nation, "Kyrgyzstan ... signed a strategic treaty with the US which stipulated the need for political and economic reform". [Ahmed Rashid, Eurasianet.org]

So, if the Australian comedians were asking, "do you agree with the Bush administration's stance in linking aid and strategic co-operation to further democratisation and market reform in the former soviet republics of central asia?" the enthusiastic "hell, yes!"es reported show a remarkably well-informed and progressive side to American public opinion. LOL LOL

133

Daiwa

on Jun 23, 2005

Dr. Bailey -

No, I'm not from Italy. Indiana originally, but now residing about 100 miles north of you, actually.

Toblerone -

One last try. In what other context has Bush used Nazi-style propaganda tactics, as you allege, aside from the Iraq war? That's why I used the issue of the Iraq war as an example to explain why I disagree with you. Furthermore, why else would you post Goering's quote, which is explicitly about war (see line 1 of the quote)? If you are trying to generalize it to the whole War on Terror, I still disagree, because the specific allegations of the employment of these tactics (lying, deception, fearmongering, etc.) have to do with circumstances surrounding the decision of Congress to authorize the invasion of Iraq (Congress did that, if you racall). This is why it seems silly to pretend that's not what this is about. The tactics you allege are meaningless except as they are applied to something.

Cheers,
Daiwa

134

Leauki

on Jun 23, 2005

"The Jews. I mean, not really, but Hitler created the impression in the German people that this was the case. Bush also created the impression that Hussein was a threat to the USA, and personally I don't buy it. Nonetheless, it was a good idea to remove Saddam, but I don't think it was justified under the reasons that Bush and Powell gave. Herein lies the analogy to Goering's quote. There is no analogy between Bush's actions and Hitler's though."

Well, one difference appears to be that "the Jews" in the 1930s did not actually run a country that was known to invade their neighbours every now and then. Hitler's propaganda about them was made up. Iraq, however, was known to be a possible threat and perceived as such by the Clinton administration and Iraq's neighbours. Bush's policy, you might remember, is to act BEFORE the target becomes a threat.

If that had been done with Nazi Germany, the world would have been a much happier place.

Otherwise you are quite correct.

135

drmiler

on Jun 23, 2005

#118 by Toblerone
Wednesday, June 22, 2005

What about a set of circumstances wherein the people actually are attacked? And what if some individuals by their actions actually do expose them to danger, is it still "Nazi propaganda tactics" for the government to let the people know?

Well if they are actually are attacked, and they have proof of who who involved, saying someone is attacking you wouldn't be a tactic then. Now tell me when did Iraq attack the US again

Try this on for size!

Iraq backs down on threat against allied planes
Sources: No U.S. strike on Iraq likely until next week
September 13, 1996
Web posted at: 3:00 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As stealth fighter-bombers arrived in Kuwait Friday, President Clinton's top advisers met at the White House to discuss when and how to strike at Iraq. Sources said it appeared the attack, if it comes, would not occur until Tuesday or Wednesday.

Iraq, meantime, appeared to back down from a confrontation by announcing Friday it will no longer fire at U.S. and allied warplanes enforcing no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.

Iraq said it would halt its attacks on U.S. and allied warplanes flying over its north and south as of midnight local time (2000 GMT), the Iraqi News Agency (INA) said, quoting an official spokesman for the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!