Smoking gun, anyone?

January 29, 2003 2:04 PM

Is The U.S. Is Looking for an Excuse To Fight?? From AlterNet .
posted by frisky biscuits (41 comments total)

1."Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September 2000. A Report of the Project for the New American Century ( pdf ).

2.The National Security Strategy of the United States of America ( html ).
posted by the fire you left me at 2:13 PM on January 29, 2003

Kneel before Zod!

That's how a real strongman would run things. No more of this stupid UN circle-jerk. Zod doesn't need no stinkin' excuses to get Kryptonian on your ass.
posted by mrmanley at 2:14 PM on January 29, 2003

Excuse my bluntness, but...no shit. This Adam Hochschild guy developed this theory just 2 days ago?? What has he been doing for the past year? I agree with his general points, but this isn't exactly groundbreaking stuff here...
posted by mathis23 at 2:20 PM on January 29, 2003

I think the groundbreaking part is the comparison to Nazi Germany. That's insightful!
posted by mr_roboto at 2:28 PM on January 29, 2003

Yes, because Bush is exactly like Hermann Goering. *rolls eyes* I'm not necessarily a big fan of Bush, and I have my own set of misgivings about a potential war with Iraq, but I would be happy if I never read another Alternet article again.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:36 PM on January 29, 2003

Other interesting articles:

"World's Species Endangered" from WWF
"Global Warming a Reality" from Greenpeace
"Fur is Bad" from PETA
"Bush is Good" from the Wall Street Journal
"Chicks Rock" from Maxim
posted by pardonyou? at 2:40 PM on January 29, 2003

See also:

"I'm Going to Do and Say Whatever is Fashionable Among My Demographic, Even Though I Have No Reliable Information One Way or the Other That Iraq Is or Is Not a Global Threat" from Metafilter
posted by dhoyt at 3:01 PM on January 29, 2003

FriskyBiscuits - That's a question?

Does a bear shit in the woods??

"When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply," he said. "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." - Larry Lindsey

"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."
George W. Bush--Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." —George W. Bush, July 27, 2001

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering

"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead." —George W. Bush, May 11, 2001

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
-George W, Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000
posted by troutfishing at 2:13 PM PST on January 29
posted by troutfishing at 3:11 PM on January 29, 2003

MeFi: Get your smarmy snerts here.
posted by Zoyd Wheeler at 3:15 PM on January 29, 2003

"I'm Going to Do and Say Whatever is Fashionable Among My Demographic, Even Though I Have No Reliable Information One Way or the Other That Iraq Is or Is Not a Global Threat" from Metafilter.

No one beside the United States (and Britain, of course) has proposed that Iraq is such a threat that military intervention is needed, and the burden to present evidence lies on those who propose the idea. The evidence provided by the United States, has so far been vague and unconvincing... largely based on what Saddam Hussien *might* do, rather than what he *is* doing. One would suppose that if actual evidence existed, it would be mentioned by the administration at every possible turn. We will find out February 5th.

So, I would propose that it is rational (and perhaps fashionable) to be skeptical of the United States' claims that Iraq is a threat.
posted by 4easypayments at 3:25 PM on January 29, 2003

Odd
As seen elsewhere:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Pacifists to peacemakers. I wonder if someone did some tinkering.
posted by Akuinnen at 3:34 PM on January 29, 2003

So, I would propose that it is rational (and perhaps fashionable) to be skeptical of the United States' claims that Iraq is a threat.

(Actually my little tagline jibe was directed at well-meaning-but-still-ignorant screechers across the entire political spectrum. For me, this cartoon sums it up best)
posted by dhoyt at 3:43 PM on January 29, 2003

:::Flagellates self for linking to a Ted "Wellstone's Plan Was Sabotaged by Republicans" Rall cartoon)::::
posted by dhoyt at 3:43 PM on January 29, 2003

It's al Frodo's fault.
posted by homunculus at 3:54 PM on January 29, 2003

dhoyt's right. democracy sucks ass. what the hell's the point in questioning the murder of a few million people here and there - we'll just look dumb. whereas if we keep mum and don't question anything, we can claim to have been on the right side all along, as soon as we know what that side is.
posted by badstone at 3:56 PM on January 29, 2003

Akuinnen: I'd imagine that quote was originally in German and translated. It's not literally what Goering said. If you look around you'll see both versions are fairly common.

Now, I asked my friend and he said the german word for pacifist is simply pazifist, but I can't find the orginal quote from Goering. He might have used an idiomatic phrase.

But, come on, think a little bit before you start accusing people of tailoring quotes.
posted by betaray at 4:10 PM on January 29, 2003

Yes, because Bush is exactly like Hermann Goering. *rolls eyes*

The linked article does not claim that Bush is exactly like Goering. The article, which I suspect many of our friends above never even read before their knees grew spastic, discusses pretexts for war and uses a quotation of Goering as an illustration. Believe it or not, the United States is preparing for "pre-emptive war." Believe it or not, other major powers have also waged "pre-emptive wars", and one of those powers happens to have been 1939 Germany. Believe it or not, if ever a time for dissent and questioning existed, now is that time.

So please, spare us the inappropriate Godwin-esque overreaction, mmm-kay?

~rolls eyes~

I'm not necessarily a big fan of Bush, and I have my own set of misgivings about a potential war with Iraq, but I would be happy if I never read another Alternet article again.

Kindly inform the assembled readers exactly what you find inaccurate about the Alternet article, or else spare us the prejudiced viewpoint.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:11 PM on January 29, 2003

"But, come on, think a little bit before you start accusing people of tailoring quotes."

I didn't try to accuse the poster, I was just curious. Like you I saw both versions widely used. People went around for a good year repeating the fake Julius Ceaser quote. So it's not like it hasn't happend before.

Snopes says the origin is from a book called Nuremberg Diary, and was said by Goering to G.M. Gilbert.
posted by Akuinnen at 4:26 PM on January 29, 2003

Akuinnen: Sorry for the snark, and just maybe I'm completely wrong one. I wonder if the Nuremberg Diary contains the original german that was spoken. If not, how did these two different versions come to exist since it appears to be an English language book?

Not that I think in this context pacifist or peacemarkers makes that much of a difference, but it's always fun to find out exactly where "quotes" (that's quotes in quotes) come from.
posted by betaray at 4:36 PM on January 29, 2003

"completely wrong one" = "completely wrong on this one"
posted by betaray at 4:40 PM on January 29, 2003

Bush representatives are thundering away about this, but those 12,000 pages of documents and the accompanying CD-ROMs do not make for high drama

So Adam Hochschild has gone through this 12,000 page document? That can't be. Fold and mutilate, do you think Adam actually read the thing before his knees grew spastic?
posted by shoos at 4:41 PM on January 29, 2003

<sarcasm>Hmmm, an Alternet post. This ought to be deeply insightful and unbiased...</sarcasm>
posted by RevGreg at 4:46 PM on January 29, 2003

ALIENS PLEDGE THEIR SUPPORT IN WAR WITH IRAQ - You won't have to go it alone, America, say extraterrestrials
posted by y2karl at 4:52 PM on January 29, 2003

I am for (against) the war. People who are against (for) the war are poopyheads.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:25 PM on January 29, 2003

Believe it or not, other major powers have also waged "pre-emptive wars", and one of those powers happens to have been 1939 Germany. Believe it or not, if ever a time for dissent and questioning existed, now is that time.

Believe it or not, there's also major powers that have refused to wage "pre-emptive wars" - and who ignored, to their significant detriment - growing evidence of serious threats emerging. Since you've decided to bring up the perfect example already - let's really LOOK at Hitler, shall we?

BEFORE Hitler waged the "pre-emptive war" you mentioned (apparently in an attempt to liken Bush to Hitler), BEFORE he had fully armed, BEFORE he was able to unleash 4 or 5 years of utter hell on the world, there were clear signs he was preparing to do so. Of course there was no solid "proof" that he was going to do so, and many of the people that were trying to raise alarms, and pushing for action against him were also called war mongers, and critisized for overreacting. There were also people that downplayed the evidence, that thought "appeasement" would work. That believed the promises made by Hitler.

If you really believe it is Bush, and not Saddam, that should be likened to Hitler ... then I'd invite you go to Washington DC, attend an anti-Bush demonstration, and publically compare Bush to Hitler (along with a few thousand other demonstrators who seem to do so on a monthly basis). Then, just for shits and giggles, go to Iraq, attend an anti-Saddam demonstration (ignoring the fact that you'd be the only one in the entire country not scared to death to show up), and publically compare Saddam to Hitler.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:44 PM on January 29, 2003

Believe it or not, the United States is preparing for "pre-emptive war." Believe it or not, other major powers have also waged "pre-emptive wars", and one of those powers happens to have been 1939 Germany. Believe it or not, if ever a time for dissent and questioning existed, now is that time.

oddly enough, the comparisons of bush=hitler are the same arguments i was having with my father just a few days ago, except that he was comparing saddam=hitler: the argument is moot as everyone knows (especially you f&m).

the opening paragraph from alternet pretty much sums up the whole gist of their argument: 'As the American armada of ships, warplanes, tanks and other equipment pours into the region around Iraq, the only uncertainty about President Bush's misguided and dangerous war seems to be just when it will start.'

it doesn't help their cause when using emotional hooks like 'armada' and 'misguided and dangerous'... then again, maybe it does...

*runs out to collect pictures of aborted fetuses
posted by poopy at 6:33 PM on January 29, 2003

Well said, Midas.
posted by dazed_one at 6:35 PM on January 29, 2003

Believe it or not, the United States is preparing for "pre-emptive war."

That is patent fabrication. The Gulf War (not pre-emptive), was put on hold in 1991, and Hussein himself agreed to U.N. conditions and restrictions, in return for armistice, which he has summarily and flagrantly disobeyed.

It's not a complex situation.
posted by hama7 at 6:44 PM on January 29, 2003

Here, here Midas. I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, but if we are going to start making serious(?) comparisons to Hitler we shouldn't forget that we are a far cry from Iraq's current status.

We can say what we will about how justified the US is in attacking countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but don't make the mistake that the regimes that our government has decided to confront have the slightest concern for the welfare of their own citizens or the citizens of the world at large. For the most part the Nazis were nothing better than a group of thugs and criminals guise in the trappings of a government. I think the same label can be applied to Pres. Hussein and the Republican Guard more aptly than Bush and the US military.
posted by Gif at 7:13 PM on January 29, 2003

The Gulf War (not pre-emptive), was put on hold in 1991, and Hussein himself agreed to U.N. conditions and restrictions, in return for armistice, which he has summarily and flagrantly disobeyed.

The cease fire resolutions call for no other enforcement measures other than sanctions.

It's not a complex situation.

Agreed, the cease fire resolutions call for no other enforcement measures other than sanctions. Not complex at all.
posted by 4easypayments at 7:48 PM on January 29, 2003

But sanctions are terrorism! Boo hoo. Can't have it both ways.
posted by hama7 at 7:53 PM on January 29, 2003

Some interesting observations and questions from William F. Buckley.
posted by hama7 at 8:27 PM on January 29, 2003

...if we are going to start making serious(?) comparisons to Hitler...

My Hitler comparison, at least, was not serious. If I had realized that serious Nazi analogies were going to be made later in the thread, I would have saved my sarcasm for those Metafilter members making the comparisons. I guess I came in with the sarcastic Hitler comment a tad early. Sorry.

Do you people realize that you're arguing about "who's more like Hitler?" This is silly. But then so also is the linked article, so I guess it was more or less inevitable.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:01 PM on January 29, 2003

"My Hitler comparison, at least, was not serious. If I had realized that serious Nazi analogies were going to be made later in the thread, I would have saved my sarcasm for those Metafilter members making the comparisons"

'Groovy, mate - remember that GW Bush's grandpappy was one of the handmaidens to the birth of Hitler's fascism? - Do you care to discuss this point? - Babealicious!

Meanwhile...
posted by troutfishing at 11:19 PM on January 29, 2003

I am for (against) the war. People who are against (for) the war are poopyheads.
posted by Satapher at 11:27 PM on January 29, 2003

I'd like to echo a thought from mr_roboto. Let's put aside any freakin' comparisons with Hitler, can we? He's become the ultimate straw man, and it makes any argument instantly ridiculous.

Yes, human rights are far worse under Saddam's rule, and Bush is a saint by comparison. But saying you're better only in comparison to something incredibly horrible is sad. Bush is no Hussein, but neither is he a Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt (either one), or countless other presidents. He's not even in Nixon or Reagan's league.

This is the first time in history the United States has openly contemplated a war of aggression, and in the face of incredible international opposition. And for what? The American way of life is not threatened. There are no tanks rolling across borders, with tyrants seeking to enslave their neighbours. There has been no massive arms buildup. The worst that can be said is, some tin pot dictator has been using shoddy record keeping to disguise the fact he still has a handful of nasty weapons that could at most kill a few thousand people but would most likely never be used.* For this you're willing to give up your self-respect and honour?

* Think about it from Saddam's perspective. He doesn't have - and could never have - enough of these weapons to do anything offensive. They're not conquering tools. If left unprovoked, he has no reason to use them. But he would use them if he had nothing left to lose, such as an American invasion of Iraq.
He could give them away to a terrorist group, yes. But that's assuming he would spend all that money and energy and risk, just to give control of them away - not too sensible. So let's assume he does. Shouldn't our target be the terrorist groups? Saddam can't be their sole weapons provider. It's more important to eliminate the trigger man than the gun manufacturer, isn't it?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:59 AM on January 30, 2003

"In his state of the union address President Bush returned to one of his favourite themes: Saddam Hussein 'aids and protects' al-Qaida. Yet the evidence for this claim is somewhere between tenuous and non-existent."
posted by homunculus at 12:54 PM on January 30, 2003

A Report of the Project for the New American Century

Speaking of whom: Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique
posted by homunculus at 12:58 PM on January 30, 2003

Bush never resembled Hitler to me. I mean, c'mon,
Warren Gamaliel Harding, tops.
posted by y2karl at 9:39 PM on January 30, 2003

y2karl - would that be "Hitler lite?"
posted by troutfishing at 9:21 PM on February 1, 2003

He'd wish.
posted by y2karl at 11:56 PM on February 1, 2003