Well, considering this war was approved of by Congress (according to the Constitution), and Prs. Bush was re-elected says that the people and those representing the States and the people weren't "dragged" into the war against our will.

There is more denouncing of the pacifist than I'm comfortable with though. It is (after all) just as Constitutional to protest any war as it is to fight in it. That doesn't change with President or Popularity of the war in question.

Of course pacifism and dissent are not the same as pulling for the enemy to win, speaking out for their cause, aiding and abetting or just plain joining in the fight. Too many on both sides of the rhetoric often forget that.

Not the most original blog you've done Toblerone

Well I should be writing an essay right now so hence the reason for putting up some discussion stimulus instead.

Daiwa, it is exactly that sort of response that people like Bush rely on to control people. You just say "oh well this person is against the government so they obviously have nothing to back them up". All you have to do is look at the facts, the Us versus them Them attitude of the Bush Admin, the attacks against anyone who didn't support the war e.g. the Dixie Chicks etc. and you can see the sort of propaganda at work.
Yet again we have a person who can't tell the difference between socialism and fascism. Just because there were fascists in the past that pretended to be socialists doesn't mean they were socialists.

or in your language:
"Baaa Baa ba ba ba baa" etc.

AARRRGGHH! Sorry Toblerone. I'm not trying to triple post, but I can't get it to delete those comments. You'll have to have a go mate.

"Well, who's to say that the people have been brainwashed? Because a majority opinion is different from yours, that is no 'proof' that the people have been brainwashed."

Surely, that is the question raised by Toblerone? I do not argue that on the basis that their opinion is different from mine, in fact Toblerone recently expressed surprise at my recent positivity regarding the Iraq War. I would argue that the people were deliberately misled and they have bought into it. My argument in favour of this is that many Americans still believe in the tenuous claims that were given for war prior to Invasion. I think there were better reasons for going to war than Bush and Co gave, but that's a separate question. That's a debate about whether the War was right, not a question about how Bush convinced us to go to war.

I don't give the US administration the same benefit of the doubt that you do, Chakgogka. I think they deliberately misled the West and the UN, and many of the people did not question it, and will still never question it. Those that did question it were accused of a lack of patriotism and of exposing the country to danger. And therein lies the analogy with Goering. Whether that explains the rest of the population's support for the war, as Goering's quote suggests, is another matter for debate. It's certainly a powerful assertion.

Hussein invaded a soverign country, butchered and tortured people there, and then violated terms of the ceasefire that left him in power, over and over and over again. He even fired on our aircraft. So, the idea that we brainwashed people with empty threats is, frankly, stupid. He caused the original war by invading Kuwait, and then botched his ceasefire. Fek 'em. One down...

Why are we talking about Gulf War 1 now, that's a different kettle of fish my friend.

Regardless, this is a guy who thought Jews were like rats, so I guess we are gonna look to him for wisdom, now.

You're missing the point there, the point was is the Bush admin. looking to him for wisdom.

Toblerone,

yes, you are absolutely right. Afterall, we all know that World War II began because Hitler won an election, was re-elected in free elections, had an elected parliament to support him, and attacked a country that was in violation of a cease-fire.

I see the similarities to Bush's policies. It's quite amazing.

The enemy, of course, was a moustached dictator who gases people and hates Jews. So there were arguably some similarities between the good guy and Hitler as well, weren't there?

I think I ought to quote a previous forum post of mine:

BEGIN
In an analogy where George Bush is Hitler and the Republicans are the Nazis, who or what is Saddam Hussein?

And what about white supremacists like David Duke who are vehemently opposed to the war?

The left may explain.

I prefer what I think is a more logical analogy:

The Americans are the Americans.
The British are the British.
The French are the collaborators.
The dictator with the moustache who gases people is the dictator with the moustache who gases people.
And the anti-semitic Arab national-socialist Ba'ath party is the required anti-semitic national-socialist party.

I cannot even determine a difference in degree between the one fascist and the other. It only seems to me that the original moustache had more time to build a huge military and wasn't disturbed by the Americans and British early and often enough.
END

And perhaps another:

BEGIN
The problem is that the fascists do not need people's support, they only need people's quiet disagreement. And they get that from the left, a left who rather demonstrate against neo-conservatives than against fascists who gas people or openly racist white supremacists like the afore-mentioned David Duke (who, I find, is rather scarily proud of being closely related to Gipsies aka Aryans).
END

You see, Toblerone, everybody who knows something about Nazis, knows that the quoted statement above is true for fascists only. A democratic leader cannot afford quiet disagreement. Because quiet disagreement loses elections. Democracy is the system where quiet disagreement becomes fatal. That is why democracy works. But unfortunately REAL fascists don't care for democracy.

So I suggest that you look for Nazi parallels among the fascists, not the democrats. It is always surprisingly hard to come to the obvious conclusions (A is A, Americans are Americans, moustached dictators who gas people are moustached dictators who gas people), but it helps in the long run.

Believe me, if you argue against Bush's policies, specifically when it comes to the war, you make a far better point if you don't pretend to be so stupid as to not see the obvious similarities between two fascist dictators or the difference between fascism and democracy.

Why should I believe anybody who knows so little about 1930s Germany that he actually thinks that it was at all similar to the USA today?

I grew up in West-Berlin, under American occupation no less. Relatives of mine died under the Nazis. Please do not compare their suffering to your inability to convince enough people that they should not vote for Republicans.

It really is not quiet the same.

Once again left arguments (yes also some from the right too) that people who disagree with their OPINION must be brainwashed or ill informed. This is a cheap non-intellectual argument at best. Cheap thinly veiled insults without merit.

Given the full facts of any situation two people can and likely will form different opinions based on those same facts. The truth is that many intelligent, well informed and thoughtful people are going to have opinions that significantly differ from your own.

Try debating without insults, veiled or otherwise, without emotionally inflammatory and often irrelevant rhetoric, and accept the fact that because someone holds a differing opinion doesn't mean they are stupid, ill informed, brainwashed, or Nazis.

"In this case, we're merely pointing out the similarities. You don't like it, tough shit. Just calling a spade a spade."

Zinkadoodle, you don't understand.

What we don't like is not that you point out similarities, it is that you do not.

And if we don't like it, is indeed "tough shit" (sorry), but not for us, but for you; because it means but one thing, namely that the "argument" has completely failed to convince any one of us.

You merely show to us that the left feel that there is a moral equivalence between George Bush's policies and Nazi crimes. But that is merely an attempt to trivialise Nazi crimes and it puts you right in the camp of neo-Nazis and white supremacists and other scum like them. But to demonstrate how little difference there is between the left and the scum does, surprisingly enough, not convince us that the left are right (no pun intended).

You don't like it, tough shit. Just calling a spade a spade.

How very adult and intellectual of you. You're obviously a person of deep thought and high reason. I'm sure I can lend credence to everything you have to say now.

what cracks me up is if this is such a nazi state, how come you are still posting anti adminisration crap and have not been hauled off and shot? think about it.

Andrew, but I get really frustrated with the righties' out of hand dismissal of anything that remotely hints of dissent from the dubya administration policies.

Disagreeement with policy is one thing.  We have had many a spirited debate here where the left and even some on the right have disagreed with his policies. I can only attribute your ignorance in this area to you being a newbie

But again you miss his point.  Once you resort to inflamatory rhetoric and specious comparisons, you have not only lost all hope of making a point, you have defeated your own purpose.  So yet again, instead of trying to convince some of the majority that voted for Bush, you have just shown them the total lack of a rational argument and any alternative.  In short, the only ones you impress with your arrogant idiocy is yourself.