& Bush

I would like to share a quote from a German Justice Minister of Chancellor Schroeder. She said that Bush is using Nazi tactics by starting a war with Iraq to change the focus from our countries domestic problems.
I definitely agree with her, it’s the same thing that happened when Clinton was accused of lying; he started bombing Iraq to get people to change the focus from him to the war.
What do you think?

Quote:

---

BERLIN, Sept. 19 -- Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's justice minister said yesterday that President Bush's "method" of pressuring Iraq was similar to tactics employed by Adolf Hitler because both sought to divert attention from domestic problems, according to a German newspaper

---

More of what she said :p

It's a tough call, and you might very well be right. On the other hand, I keep thinking back to the 9/11 thing and the speech he made.

Bush made it pretty plain over a year ago now that we'd be taking a hard look at a lot of places. In that respect, the thing with Iraq shouldn't surprise anybody. Iraq has in the past, and probably still is, financing and supporting terrorism. I think Iraq is one of many on the list. After we finish with them, there will be another, and another after that.

As far as the stock market taking a dive...if somebody sneezes in Timbuktu, the market is affected these days. I don't have a huge amount in it. I've got a LOT less now than before. I'm just letting it sit. The market will recover. It might take longer now. People today are motivated more by greed than in the past.

Bush has all the reasons to provocate war:
- He have to change the focus of the people as you said.
- War is very good for the economy.
- After the 9/11, all his credibility his based on his anti-terrorist politic. Without terrorists, it's not really efficient. But, what lucky man he is, usa have a credible evildoer in stock.
- With those operations in Irak, usa will be able to do some pressures on anothers states.

The fact that Irak is in a very bad situation with the embargo and the non existence of real interests for them to help terrorism are not predominants factors.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Chuck56
Iraq has in the past, and probably still is, financing and supporting terrorism.

---

How do you know that for a fact? Did you see it on The US propaganda machine, CNN? :rofl:


Show me some solid evidence of Iraq's involvement in 9/11 attacks. I bet you can't.


On the other hand, here are some FACTS on loss of life during the Gulf War. SOURCE.

March 6, 1992: The Washington Post reports that the U.S. Census Bureau demographer assigned to estimate the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War will be fired. Beth Osborne Daponte estimates that 86,000 men, 40,000 women and 32,000 children died at the hands of American-led coalition forces, during the domestic rebellions that followed and from postwar deprivation. After various protests, the Bureau rescinds the firing but rewrites the report, lowering the death toll and removing the data on women and children. The following month, the Pentagon published its three-volume official history of the war, but a draft chapter on casualties is deleted and there is no mention of Iraqi deaths. (The London Independent, April 23, 1992)

I doubt that there will ever be any clear eveidence that Iraq had anything more to do with the 9-11 attacks then praising those who did it... That in and of it self makes no differance... As far as I can see the reason the US is going after Saddam at this point is that he is actively seeking to get weapons of mass destruction... IMO if he is allowed to get them he will give them to any terrorist that asks him for them so they can use them on Isreal, the US, or the UK... That makes the argument for going to war with Iraq very strong IMHO... As for the civilian deaths that were mentioned I haven't seen anyone mention the 100,000+ civilians Saddam killed during the war he had with Iran... OR the Kurdish civilians he has killed since the end of the Gulf War... some estimates put the number well above 100,000... Others put it around 50,000... THere is no reason to think that when the US and who ever goes into the war with us attack that there will not be civilian deaths... There are civilian deaths in all wars... They are a sad product of war and one that will never be changed unfortunately...
And as for Bush starting a war because he is just trying to get attention off of domestic issues I disagree... Clinton started bombing folks because he had commited a crime and didn't want teh sheeple of the US to notice he was about to get caught... Bush is doing nothing more than he saud he would do in speach on Sept 14, 2001... He is going after terrorists, those who sponser them, those who harbor them, and those who would give material aid to them...Just as many on AO I am sure I ahevone really very important reason NOT to go to war... My wife is in the Army... She has been away from home now for over 6 months supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Afganastan... Do I want anyones wife, father, son, daughter, or husband to have to go to war? No but do I think it is going to happen and do I agree with it? Yes... Just my $.02... :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 4MidgetHitmen
Bush is doing nothing more than he saud he would do in speach on Sept 14, 2001... He is going after terrorists, those who sponser them, those who harbor them, and those who would give material aid to them...

---

Here's a "c & p" from a piece written by a Canadian activist, Steve Gowans. You can read the full article here. It's entitled- Does this country have the moral authority to lead the world?

Quote:

---

The country's wars are always said to be fought for some high moral
purpose: to stop ethnic cleansing, to prevent tyranny, to uphold
international law, to defeat communist expansion, to root out
terrorism,
but somehow, while this is being done, the country always seems, as
John
Flynn once put it, to capture its enemies' markets while blundering
into
their oil wells.

---

No matter what your beliefs are, the article makes for an interesting read and I strongly recommend checking it out...

First I'd like to say that the US has been talking about sending troops back into Iraq long before anyone had heard any mention of the insider trading scandals,so accusations that Bush is using Iraq to divert attention from himself is completely rediculous.Next,people get killed in wars.They always have and they always will.Letting ruthless dictators get their hands on nuclear weapons isn't the way to prevent that.I nuke dropped on any large city will kill and injure many more than 150000 people,not to mention making the land for miles around uninhabitable.Accusing the US government of being Nazi's disgusts me.It may not be a perfect government,but it's the best in the world in my opinion,and anyone who thinks otherwise go spend a few years in a third world country of your choice and come talk to me when you come back.The funny thing about all this is.I bet at least half of the people that are critisizing the US government now,are the same people that were saying lets kill 'em all immediately after 9/11.

Lots of interesting points here.

The reason for the views of the current German chancellor (Gerhard Schroeder ) are straightforward. He has taken a strong view against any sort of war against Iraq (and also to a large extent, a general anti US view), because this is popular with the voters.
His opponent (Edmund Stoibe) was ahead by 2-4% until Gerhard Schroeder changed his tactics, and now the result is too close to call. Can't really blame a politician for doing what his people want to hear, can you?

I don't think that there is significant evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. I think Bush made a big mistake in trying to claim that was the case (I don't expect Blair to claim that).
Of course, that doesn't mean that there may well be compelling evidence to support the claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Over here, it will all turn on what the UK's dossier about Iraq reveals when it is published on Tuesday in the UK, before the debate about Iraq in the House of Commons.

I don't believe that Bush or Blair are using this as a diversionary tactic. Why should they?
They are both doing fairly well politically, and have no need to invent a crisis.
They both believe that the policy they are pursuing on Iraq is valid from a moral perspective.

At first I was against the first strike policy. However after talking to a WWII veteran I changed my mind. He said if we had this policy piror WWII, we would have been able to stop Germany before they became a threat. He talked about how many friends died because we didn't stand up and stop Germany. We would have never dropped the bomb and killed all those people in Japan.

That's true detoxsmurf. My father says the same thing and the guys at the local VFW(Veterans of Foreign Wars) are all pretty much in agreement that, for a change, we're doing it right. Most of them are WW2 or Korean War vets. Most of them don't LIKE it, but the consensus seems to be that somebody has to take the lead. Right now, we're the only ones who can.

I've seen war and paid a small price, considering what happened to some of my buddies, and I don't wish it on my worst enemy. Still, I think it's got to be done. Even then, we aren't out of the woods. Those folks are here, and they're only waiting for somebody to give them the word.

Quote:

---

I've seen war and paid a small price, considering what happened to some of my buddies, and I don't wish it on my worst enemy. Still, I think it's got to be done. Even then, we aren't out of the woods. Those folks are here, and they're only waiting for somebody to give them the word.

---

Why has is it got to be done? I see no reason what so ever other than to bring back that pseudo American pried. :confused:

Quote:

---

We would have never dropped the bomb and killed all those people in Japan.

---

And as for the Japanese we knew they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor we let them do it so we could test our bomb on them. :eek:

:(

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by detoxsmurf
We would have never dropped the bomb and killed all those people in Japan.

---

The US is the only country that has ever used weapons of mass destruction on another country as an act of war. The US has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world.


Who is the real threat to world security?

I am sorry Conf1rm3d K1ll but the US is not the only country to ever use WMD against another country during a war... France 1914 the Germans used Mustard and Chlorine gas on a town called Effra (probably not spelled right)... France 1917 France uses Mustard gas on the Germans outside of the Ardene Forest... Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 US A-Bombs end WWII... Cambodia... kimer Rouge use Chlorine gas on villiages in the Jungle... Iran 1979-1988 Iraq use Sarin Nerve agent and Mustard Gas on Iranian civilians... 1992-1994 Iraq use Chemical agents on Kurds in Northern Iraq... The US stock pile of Chemical weapons is large but not the largest... Russia has approximately 100-150 times the chemical arsenal the US has... Iraq has a very large bio-chem arsenal that their leader is not ashsamed to use ... The real threat to world security are all the people who would rather wait until Iraq or a terrorist has unleashed a WMD on the world and then point fingers at the US, UK, and other Western powers and ask why didn't you stop this from happening... That is the real threat to world security...

By using the term "weapons of mass destruction" is was referring to nuclear weapons rather than chemical warfare. My mistake. I should have been more specific.


And it seems you've got me again. The US doesn't have the largest stockpile of chemical weapons. It does in fact have the second largest stockpile, with the largest quantities of Anthrax and Smallpox...

Whilst we are listing Countries that have used chemical weapons in the past, there seems to be one you've left out. The United States use of chemical weapons during the Korean war....

I stand corrected... USAMRID and Dugway proving grounds in Utah have very large stocks of Antrax, small pox, and other nasty little bugs... I read the "White Paper" in the link and before I will give you that point I will have to see if I can find more on the subject... I concider myself fairly well versed in Military history from 1929 on and I have heard about the mass killing done by GI's in Korea... The other I will have to look into...

lot's of interresting points here, and here is my contribution :
-what right has a country to decide of another country's faith... specially when that one was fully supported by the states in the 80's ...(friend's backstab ?)
-could it be possible that the us is wrong ? ie GWB is not leading the cavalry charge into the armed forces or is he ? ( according to the brits they MAY have weapons of mass destruction in a couple of years ...)
-the use of brute force doesn't proove that you are right; just that you are the stronguer ...in some culture the use of force in that case is seen as a sign of weakness rather then strength.
-could it be personnal revenge that motivate GWB after all iraq did try to shoot his dady ... tell that to the gi's (since they will be casualty in both sides) that he is only there to get his president's revenche because they try to hurt his daddy ... What are the motivation of GWB his interest of the nation he is supposed to represent
-finally i don't think the us economy would be able to support a long "conflict" since it will have direct influence on oil price that are directly correlated to the economic situation.

I think the us gov should come out with real public proofs instead of stating "there are links to obl to iraq. Facts can be faked or manipulated but that is much better then just hear say ...

Quote:

---

March 6, 1992: The Washington Post reports that the U.S. Census Bureau demographer assigned to estimate the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War will be fired. Beth Osborne Daponte estimates that 86,000 men, 40,000 women and 32,000 children died at the hands of American-led coalition forces, during the domestic rebellions that followed and from postwar deprivation. After various protests, the Bureau rescinds the firing but rewrites the report, lowering the death toll and removing the data on women and children. The following month, the Pentagon published its three-volume official history of the war, but a draft chapter on casualties is deleted and there is no mention of Iraqi deaths. (The London Independent, April 23, 1992)

---

32,000 children dead over oil. How many will die this time around just so Bush can finish his daddy's war.

The actual numbers...as has been posted a few times before.. was colser to 12,000 total dead from the war itself... I will find the link once again and post it again... this is not to finish "daddy's" war nor is it over oil... It is because Saddam is a crazy SOB who will use WMD at the drop of a hat... If the US does nothing and he uses them again (which he will) then you and the rest of the world are going to be screaming at us, 'You knew he would do this and did nothing." if we go in now you and the rest of the world are going to scream, "Why are you doing this he isn't doing anything." We as Americans are screwed either way... I will leave you with this to ponder:

When they came for the jews I said nothing for I was not a jew.
When they came for the communists I said nothing for I was not a communist.
When they came for the intelectuals I said nothing for I was not an intelectual.
When they came for the homosexuals I said nothing for I was not a homosexual.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to say anything.

That was written by one of the unkown victims of Hitler or words very close to it. The reason I include it with this post is that Saddam is as close to Hitler as we have seen since WWII. He is a threat to the world and don't think that just because you live in Canada that you will be safe if he is allowed to continue development of his WMD...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 4MidgetHitmen
When they came for the jews I said nothing for I was not a jew.
When they came for the communists I said nothing for I was not a communist.
When they came for the intelectuals I said nothing for I was not an intelectual.
When they came for the homosexuals I said nothing for I was not a homosexual.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to say anything.

That was written by one of the unkown victims of Hitler or words very close to it.

---

I don't mean to "nit picK" but you're a little off target. The quote was actually written by Pastor Niemöller, a resident of Berlin. He founded the Pastors' Emergency League as a form of protest against National Socialist involvement in the Church.


It's rather clever of you to turn it around in support of Bush when alot of people see him has the real evil dictator of the new millenium. Perhaps it should read more like this-


First they came for Arabs, but I was not an Arab so I said nothing..
Then they came for the oil, but I too use oil so I said nothing.......


Anyway, just a thought...On a side note, have you heard Public Enemy's new song "Son of a Bush"??? ****ing brilliant...

Thank You once again Conf1rm3d... As I have said before you help keep me on my toes... I was not sure about the author... I personally do not think of Bush as an evil dictator... But then again I voted for him :) And I will again in 2004... That aside... numbers of Iraqi dead from the Gulf War are never going to be confirmed as to exact numbers... The Iraqi leadership have time and again lied about first one thing and then another... They place military facilities into hospitals and then try to "show the world" what animals we americans are by blowing the crap out of them...
They put chemical weapons development facilities into "baby food factories" and then bitch because they get blown up... the latest thing is to build Command and Control centers below a families house in the hope that it will go unnoticed by the US...ANd when we blow the S**T out of it in the next war they will parade the news media by the location and show them the "innocent civilians" that were killed... I am sorry but that only makes the case against Saddam that much stronger in my book... Any leader that would do those kinds of things to his people in order to keep the ability to manufacture weapons he will use against anyone he feels like (the US, UK, Kurds, Isreal,etc.) for no other reason than he wants the ability to kill hunders of thousands at one pop as opposed to just a few hundred needs to go...

Quote:

---

32,000 dead children

---

The exact number does’nt matter 1 dead child is one to many. Guess i'm just an anti-war hippie.