stratoman Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 This was on O'Reilly's website: The New Nazi's By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Mar 06, 2003 It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of The Third Reich 70 years ago. I consider Saddam Hussein to be "Hitler lite" because he has the same virulent anti-semitism, the same callous disregard for human life, and the identical lust for power that Adolf possessed. The only difference between the two villains is the size of the moustache. Back in the 1930's, millions the world over simply did not want to think about the evil that Hitler was brewing up. France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they are today on the Iraq question. Stalin ultimately signed a treaty with Hitler making it possible for him to use most of his forces to crush Europe, and France simply allowed Hitler to violate the Treaty of Versailles, even more than the 17 times Saddam has violated current UN mandates. Britain went along with France in the '30's, but now it seems the UK has learned from its historical mistakes. And then there's the Pope. John Paul II recently came out and said that any war against Iraq would be "immoral." Back in the '30's, Pope Pius XII actually supported Hitler politically, at least in the beginning of his rise when Pius was stationed in Germany. The Third Reich was considered a bulwark against Communism, which the Church greatly feared. Subsequently, Pius kept quiet about the atrocities of Hitler's regime because he knew that the Vatican itself could easily be vanquished by the Huns. Today, John Paul deplores the violence that comes with any war but is at a loss to explain how terrorism and the states that enable it should be dealt with. Remember, the Pope did not approve of the military action against the Taliban. Peace, of course, should be the goal of all civilized human beings. Millions of Americans are against a war in Iraq today and millions of us were vehemently opposed to confronting Hitler as well. Back then the anti-war movement was led by Charles Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy who largely dismissed accusations of Nazi brutality and weapons production as propaganda. In 1937, SS Chief Henrich Himmler was even on the cover of Time Magazine. I have the issue. The article criticized Himmler and hinted at barbaric behavior, but there was no "smoking gun." The failure to confront the obvious evil of the Nazis early, of course, led to the deaths of more than 55 million human beings in Europe. Millions of Jews were stunned when they were led by German guards to the gas chambers. How could human beings do this? Even after evidence of mass executions surfaced, many the world over refused to believe it. Liberating American soldiers were horrified at what they found in the concentration camps. Most had no idea of what they were really fighting against. Does anyone today believe that Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter Jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so? So what is the difference between a dictator like Saddam and Adolph Hitler? It continues to astound me that 37% of Americans, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, do not support the removal of Saddam Hussein unless other countries, which do not share our danger, sign on. I mean, why allow a dictator who has weapons that would make Hitler salivate, remain a threat to the world? Does it make sense that Cameroon has to sign on before we neutralize this threat? If France, Germany, China, and Russia would support the United States against Saddam, he'd already be out of power. If France, Russia, and Britain had marched into Germany in 1933 there would have been no World War or Holocaust. Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of killing people, that's a fact. And the only way that evil will be stopped, is for just and courageous people to confront it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 :doh: Sure, the Iraqi army is going to march through Europe just like the Nazi's, the Iraqi air force is going to unleash hell on Britian, the Iraqi navy is a real threat too... :doh: Garbage.... If you want to say Saddam is a nut like Hitler, fine, but don't compare the Republican Guard to the Third Reich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 He isnt saying they will march thru Europe but that the Europeans and other idiots are making the same mistakes dismissing the evil of Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by NavyDave He isnt saying they will march thru Europe but that the Europeans and other idiots are making the same mistakes dismissing the evil of Saddam. I understand, but there is no way that Saddam represents the same threat that Hitler did... to even compare it is crazy, yet here is O'Reilly doing that... I cannot understand it. Saddam will never be in a position similar to Hitler. He doesn't have the manpower, resources or allies (countries willing to fight on his side) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Alot of people used the containment argument with Hitler as well. That he was not a threat and how no man could be so crazy. For god sakes this man's hero is stalin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Saddam will never be in a position similar to Hitler. He doesn't have the manpower, resources or allies (countries willing to fight on his side) The article asks... Does anyone today believe that Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter Jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so? well, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Sure, the Iraqi army is going to march through Europe just like the Nazi's, the Iraqi air force is going to unleash hell on Britian, the Iraqi navy is a real threat too. You don't understand the concept of WMD do you? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Saddam will never be in a position similar to Hitler. He doesn't have the manpower, resources or allies (countries willing to fight on his side) code, while I don't necessarily disagree with your statement here, you don't seem to be considering the consequences of someone willing to use WMD. It doesn't take the manpower, resources or allies to be a considerable threat to the world that it did in the 30s/40s.Saddam will not be able to invade and control Europe or the US, but given the right weapons he could certainly cause considerable mayhem. With a couple of vials of smallpox and a few willing agents think of the damage he could inflict. Since Saddam is in the spotlight standing up against us he could very well find groups with nothing else in common other than a hatred for the West aligned with him and willing to share weapons and agents. He needs to be checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama :doh: Sure, the Iraqi army is going to march through Europe just like the Nazi's, the Iraqi air force is going to unleash hell on Britian, the Iraqi navy is a real threat too... :doh: Garbage.... If you want to say Saddam is a nut like Hitler, fine, but don't compare the Republican Guard to the Third Reich. Amen...:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: O'Reilly's Rush Hanidy Talk about the three stooges...:laugh: :laugh: Remember folks this is not news it's entertainment!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama :doh: Sure, the Iraqi army is going to march through Europe just like the Nazi's, the Iraqi air force is going to unleash hell on Britian, the Iraqi navy is a real threat too... :doh: Garbage.... If you want to say Saddam is a nut like Hitler, fine, but don't compare the Republican Guard to the Third Reich. Yea, who cares if he can march through the middle east after all? It's not Europe or the US so what does it matter? He would just kill a bunch of Jews and other innocent people while sponsoring terrorism in our country. Terrorism usually only kills a few people at the time, who cares about that after all? We need to just pretend that he doesn't exist and then we can have peace. That's the right thing to do, right? :doh: :doh: :doh: :gus: :gus: :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Code....you're right....all he has are WMDs....no threat at all!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Remember, we are talking about a comparison to Hitler.... Nowhere did I say that Saddam is some innocent guy being villified by the Bush administration. Hitler conquered other countries and used brute millitary force to slaugher millions of jews and had major allies in Italy and Japan.... No comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Remember, we are talking about a comparison to Hitler.... Nowhere did I say that Saddam is some innocent guy being villified by the Bush administration. Hitler conquered other countries and used brute millitary force to slaugher millions of jews and had major allies in Italy and Japan.... No comparison. What do you mean there's no comparison? He doesn't get to be compared to Hitler until he's killed 10 million people? -Hitler killed people based on their race, religion, skin color, etc. -Saddam killed people based on their race, religion, skin color, etc -Hitler took over countries in Europe because of military force and western European appeasment. -Saddam tried to take over 2 Middle East countries with military force and would have if it hadn't been for the US. So there's cleary a comparison. I'm sorry if he hasn't killed enough people yet for Saddam to be in the same league as Hitler, but to say there's no comparison is ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by Canyonero! What do you mean there's no comparison? He doesn't get to be compared to Hitler until he's killed 10 million people? -Hitler killed people based on their race, religion, skin color, etc. -Saddam killed people based on their race, religion, skin color, etc -Hitler took over countries in Europe because of military force and western European appeasment. -Saddam tried to take over 2 Middle East countries with military force and would have if it hadn't been for the US. So there's cleary a comparison. I'm sorry if he hasn't killed enough people yet for Saddam to be in the same league as Hitler, but to say there's no comparison is ignorant. Well, in that case, I'm sure we can find quite a few other Mini Hitlers.... You are missing the point. Hell, most of you on the board have made posts detailing how easy it will be to defeat Saddam... there are posts laughing about how his troops are already surrendering... That sounds like the Third Reich to me... :doh: What other world powers are his allies? Most of you on the right have pointed out how easy this military action will be, sounds like Hitler all over again.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 There is a parallel in the treatment of the Kurds. This is what has me perplexed. The WMD arguement and the immediacy of his threat doesn't ring true to me. North Korea seems much more immediate, ready, dangerous, and equally as monstrous to their own people. They also advertise that they will sell WMD to people who have enough cash. Iraq is not an immediate threat to the US with the possible exception of actions done through secondary groups like terrorism. I am not even sure if Iraq is an immediate militaristic threat to its neighbors. It has not attacked a foreign country or really threatened to do so in more than 10 years. The Hitler argument is one that works for me and it's one I've considered previously. The man is a monster and a butcher, if we believe news reports, for this reason he should be stopped and removed from power. He is a danger to those who are different and those who are around him and keeping a monster caged and confined only make them that much more dangerous if they are ever released. He does share the some qualities of Hitler. I don't think he could rise to the level of global monstrocity, simply because if he did so, he would be obliterated. Any use of WMD under his name would have a reciprocation. He knows that. Bush has said as much. He said there were no weapons he would not consider using. The question is (if you go along with what I am saying) do you strike millitarilry for the purpose of removing a monster, who is at least immediately only a monster to his own people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold There is a parallel in the treatment of the Kurds. This is what has me perplexed. The WMD arguement and the immediacy of his threat doesn't ring true to me. North Korea seems much more immediate, ready, dangerous, and equally as monstrous to their own people. They also advertise that they will sell WMD to people who have enough cash. Iraq is not an immediate threat to the US with the possible exception of actions done through secondary groups like terrorism. I am not even sure if Iraq is an immediate militaristic threat to its neighbors. It has not attacked a foreign country or really threatened to do so in more than 10 years. The Hitler argument is one that works for me and it's one I've considered previously. The man is a monster and a butcher, if we believe news reports, for this reason he should be stopped and removed from power. He is a danger to those who are different and those who are around him and keeping a monster caged and confined only make them that much more dangerous if they are ever released. He does share the some qualities of Hitler. I don't think he could rise to the level of global monstrocity, simply because if he did so, he would be obliterated. Any use of WMD under his name would have a reciprocation. He knows that. Bush has said as much. He said there were no weapons he would not consider using. The question is (if you go along with what I am saying) do you strike millitarilry for the purpose of removing a monster, who is at least immediately only a monster to his own people. Good post... I actually agree with you.. If you want to say that Saddam is comparable to Hitler as an individual, but nothing more, I can accept that, but in my mind, the difference is the resources, manpower etc... Saddam may think like Hitler, but he does not have the ability to wreak the havoc Hitler did. I do not see Iraq as a threat to the US, unless, as you say, WMD were passed on to terrorists, and so far, there is no basis to say it has or will happen. Saddam knows he's dead if he did something like that. Sure he's willing to die rather than give up his rule, but somehow, I don't think he is going to do something to bring his death any faster, I believe he likes being in power, there is nothing out there that makes it reasonable to assume Saddam wants to be a Martyr like Osama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I think Saddam can do more damage with his WMDs than Hitler could with his army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Unless you have comprehensive knowledge, the correct answer is that you can't draw a conclusion.... 1) do you know how the ISI works and what it has done gloabally? 2) do you know how Iraqi money finds its way into terrorists hands? 3) do you know why he has consistently undermined UN resolutions on WMDs? 4) do you know why he attacked kuwait? 5) do you know whether terrorists use Iraq as a transit nation? 6) do you know whether he would attack Israel with WMDs? 7) do you thnk that he has orderred genocidal actions or not? 8) do you know what the Iraqi people want? is there even such a body as the Iraqi people? 9) do you know what the nuclear/biological/chemical scieintists have been asked to create? 10) do you know why he ordered the huge cannon built several years ago? 11) do you know the actual magnitude of murders and torture going on in that countery? 12) do you know, for a fact, what interactions at whatever level, he might have had with al queda during the afghan war? 13) do you know what is happening on a daily basis in terms of internal Iraqi planning, agendas, goal setting? I submit...that your only response can be "only what I have read in the press and on the net".......you have to weigh the uncertain nature of public information against the known actions of the past and the unknown future consequences of being wrong. that's what most of these arguments devolve to: either war is wrong; or, the consequences of war are worse than alternative options. that is what the left has been arguiing. excepting the "war is wrong" pov, it is a matter of relative risks based upon assumptions about an unknown future and imperfect information about processes that are inherently secretive and manipulative. we'll leave the whole moral obligation matter for a different thread since that one will never result in any kind of consensus. as for NK...the geopolitical situations are different. and there is no written/unwritten law that states these threats have to handled in the same way, at the same time, or with the same partners....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Let's also remember that no-one knew of the concentration camps until we invaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I've said this in the past: I am not morally opposed to war in general. My complaint all along and the reason that I am at this point against this war is because in my opinion the current administration has not justified the possible action. If they have evidence that they are not sharing for national security reasons, fine, I understand that's a possibility, but if they are witholding evidence, I'm sure they understand that some people are not going to agree with them. The difference that I see in some cases, not all, but some is that the right is willing to go along with Bush for no other reason than he is a republican... I and others are not.. I didn't agree with Clinton's actions at that time so in my case, it has nothing to do with being left or right. I personally feel that Bush has not done a good job justifing the cause.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Code, the problem with the argument that "the case hasn't been made" is that it doesnt set a qualification of what WOULD make the case. 18 UN resolutions is not enough? Violating the Cease fire from the Gulf war is not enough? Attempting to assassinate a US Pres is not enough? Killing 1.5 million muslims is not enough? Ammassing WMDs is not enough? The administration has made the case plenty of times over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Code, the problem with the argument that "the case hasn't been made" is that it doesnt set a qualification of what WOULD make the case. 18 UN resolutions is not enough? Violating the Cease fire from the Gulf war is not enough? Attempting to assassinate a US Pres is not enough? Killing 1.5 million muslims is not enough? Ammassing WMDs is not enough? The administration has made the case plenty of times over. Sorry.... I have never seen a link between Saddam and Osama.. We have WMD, Russia, China, Britain, Korea and on and on... are we going to go to war with every country that has them so that only the US has them? I heard the rumors that Saddam put a hit on Bush, but I have also read that they were false... so I don't know what to think about that.. Killing 1.5 million muslims? Please update me... seriously... If that is true, why would Saddam give WMD to Osama, isn't he muslim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I would guess that nothing short of a picture of the two of them at lunch would prove it to you. But is it your contention that only a connection between Saddam and OBL would justify a war? The UN resolutions mean nothing? The cease fire agreement means nothing? The assaasination attempt means nothing http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/ The fact that he gives money to the families of homicide bombers means nothing? That he allows Hamas, Hezbollah, et al to have offices in Baghdad means nothing? Then to say that others are bad too as a justification for leaving him alone? NK should be an example of what happens when we DONT deal with a threat, not a reason to ignore one. An anology I heard. If you want to capture a nonvenomous snake, you grab him. IF you want to capture a poisonous snake, you use more caution. So the question is, what WILL qualify as enough proof/evidence/reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Case in point.... The same regime that we were so determined to remove from Vietnam is still in power today... What threat have they been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.