BUSH SUCKS

“"but yeah, i agree, it's 15%, ,mutt. how drillin some of our anwar?"

I think the thing to do would be to suddenly stop importing from Saudi Arabia. Even if just for a year, their economy would collapse and the Islamic radicals would overthrow the House, and the U.S. would have a great reason to invade and secure their oil resources.

Of course we'd have to be able to replace Saudi oil with oil from Russia and Africa, which is still years away. Probably, if we go to war with Iraq, the House of Saud will collapse anyway resulting in the same situation.”

“or alaska....”

“I don't believe that the untapped oil in anwar represents anything more than a temporary source of profits for oil companies. Domestic drilling is not the answer, IMO. Conservation, alternative energy sources, and aggressive foreign policies, however, are.”

“Yes, Butch Sucks, and gets drunk and trips over the dog.”

“Unpoiled Anwar is out there as a preserve just to irritate republicans.”

“if it was higer, EVERYTHING in this counrty would be higher & the economy would be in the tank and you would rip bush a new for a bad economy.

try refuting that....."
stratdewd\

If you haven't noticed, the economy is in the shiitter...”

“It's about time a major news source picked up on the efforts the U.S. has made in exploiting oil resources in Africa. But the really annoying thing is they leave out the China factor altogether. If China hadn't been in the region for the past 10 years with good success, chances are the U.S. still wouldn't be actively exploring oil resources there. Half our ambition there is to keep China from monopolizing the oil exports from Africa.

NY Times African oil article. Requires registration.”

“We should proceed immediatly with the inspections, and have B-52 circling overhead. Any facility that the inspectors can't get into should be bombed. Any vehicles fleeing facilities about to be inspected should be strafed.

I like the fact that Bush means what he says, and that N.Korea thinks he is not a typical politician, who takes a poll before he does anything.

The difference between N Koren and Iraq is, Iraq is run by a nut job who will conquer neighboring countries, has control of huge oil reserves, and thus unlimited funds, and wants control of more. He has and will use anything in a fight, and will fight anyone nearby just for their oil. He doesn't care about the opinion of the world body, and will covertly support terrorists. If he can develop a technology, they will deliver it to the U.S. He would not hesitate to take out Tel Aviv or NY. And importantly, he doesn't have nukes yet.

N. Korea is run by a nut job who would like to conquer neighboring countries, but has no money. His main enemy is South Korea, which has "moved on" and left him in the dust. Now he just needs to feed his people so they don't revolt. He doesn't have the resources to invade S. Korea, and knows that they won't invade him. He has nukes, and has not used them. His quest is ideological, and has no appeal to neighbors. He sells missile technology to people we don't like. Is he selling to Terrorists? He seems to know that would be suicide right now. He is presenting a huge risk to taking out a city. And importantly, he does have nukes,and the ability to lob one to Tokyo. Invasion is not an option.

International Law? The UN? No Allies? The US has done some self serving, imperial, arrogant, jingoistic, cruel, and stupid things. We also saved the world from Hilter (with a little help from 8 million Russians). The US alone among other countries considers what is the right thing to do, and steps in where there is nothing to be gained by doing so (Serbia, Somalia). If the leaders of Europe are busy waiting for the polls to say so, and IF we think Sadam H. is an H bomb waiting to go off in NY or Tel Aviv, we should take the responsibility for being the only country capable of pulling it off, and go kick some butt. If we are doing it for the right reason, history will bear us out, and other paria states like N. Korea will act a little nicer for awhile.

If someone can say "I really don't believe Sadam will ever give al Queda an H bomb, or use it himself", then thats a good reason not to invade Iraq.

Is that what people are saying to oppose an invasion? I think they are saying "we won't be popular, lives will be lost, its not nice, its not in the rule book, lets wait and see, it must be wrong because France doesn't like it, lets vote on it, lets get some help, lets get some concensus, its an arrogant thing to do, who made us the boss, lets wait awhile, lets get it legitamized, lets make it a majority vote, lets make it unanamous." Those are not the right reasons to not invade Iraq. Those are the reasons Hilter got as far as he did.

Thats my rant and I'm sticking to it.”

“Let's keep in mind that the USA helped Sadaam repel Iran, even to the point of helping him with biological weapons. Bush is merely repeating what the Ayatollah Khomeni said during Iran's war with Iraq. Maybe Reagan and Bush #1 should have helped Iran take care of Sadaam back then.”

“Give it a rest Dunadan, we were helping him to help ourselves... you make it sound like Reagan was trying to fuel the enemy... I'm sorry not everyone plays fair...”

“And we didn't know that Sadaam was completely crazy at the time? I say we should adopt a policy that says we don't get into bed with whackos, even if they are the enemy of our enemies.”

“Naive naive naive... adopt a policy that says we don't get into bed with whackos... what defines a whacko? Hell, you could probably define over half the people/groups the US deals with as whackos...

Ya have to play the cards your dealt, and Saddam was the card at the time”

“I've got to agree with Dunadan on who we support. We could claim a moral high ground more easily if we had a policy of promoting democracy in all relationships, and not supporting dictatorships of any kind. There is no reason we as a country can't be more moral in that regard. However, encouraging a mad dictator to engage and deplete a malignant theocracy, thats not such a bad idea. If we could get Sadam into a war with the Taliban, all the better. Right now, I'd settle for Saudi v. Sadam.”

“"We also saved the world from Hilter (with a little help from 8 million Russians). "

If I recall my Russian history correctly it was more like 22 million Russians.”

“"we were helping him to help ourselves"

I agree. We were trying to maintain stability in the ME by pitting a moderately strong Iraq against a moderately strong Iran.

I've got to agree with Dunadan on who we support. We could claim a moral high ground more easily if we had a policy of promoting democracy in all relationships, and not supporting dictatorships of any kind.

I agree, but the harsh, cruel reality of life is the U.S. needs to protect its energy resources at all costs. I'm all for the U.S. doing whatever it takes to do so. The U.S. is the sole superpower in the world. Never before in the history of mankind has a nation had the means to project power globally - militarily, economically, and culturally. That gives the U.S. unprecidented opportunity to do "good" in the world, but its very ability to do so is predicated on having a strong economy and military, which in turn absolutely requires stable, cheap oil resources. If you want the U.S. to be a positive force in the world, then you have to allow the U.S. to take Machiavellian measures to protect its energy resources. There's no other way about it, unless its dependence on foreign sources of energy decreases.”

“If you haven't noticed, the economy is in the shiitter..."
roseymonster



the economy is growing. tom dashle will tell you different but it is. gas is 11 cents less than it was last year.”

“Not since "Mein Kampf" has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed, years ahead of the blow.

Adolf Hitler clearly spelled out his plans to destroy the Jews and launch wars of conquest to secure German domination of world affairs in his 1925 book, long before he ever assumed power. Despite the zigzags of rhetoric he later employed, the various PR spins and temporary justifications offered for this or that particular policy, any attentive reader of his vile regurgitation could have divined his intentions as he drove his country -- and the world -- to murderous upheaval.

Similarly -- in method, if not entirely in substance -- the Bush Regime's foreign policy is also being carried out according to a strict blueprint written years ago, then renewed a few months before the Regime was installed in power by the judicial coup of December 2000.



The first version, mentioned in passing here last week, was drafted by a team operating under then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992. It set out a new doctrine for U.S. power in the 21st century, an aggressive, unilateral approach that would secure American domination of world affairs -- "by force if necessary," as one of the acolytes put it.

When the Dominators were temporarily ousted from government after 1992, they continued their strategic planning with funding from the military-energy-security apparatus and right-wing foundations. This culminated in a new group, the aptly-named Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Members included hard-right players like Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad (now "special envoy" to the satrapy of Afghanistan) and other empire aspirants currently perched in the upper reaches of government power.

In September 2000, PNAC updated the original Cheney plan in a published report, "Strengthening America's Defenses." In this and related documents, the earlier precepts were reiterated and refined. The plans called for unprecedented hikes in military spending, the plantation of American bases in Central Asia and the Middle East, the toppling of recalcitrant regimes, the militarization of outer space, the abrogation of international treaties, the willingness to use nuclear weapons and control of the world's energy resources.

And the present course of action was clearly set forth: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

But Iraq is just a stepping stone. Iran is next -- indeed, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the PNAC team say that Iran is "perhaps a far greater threat" to U.S. oil hegemony. Other nations will follow, including Russia and China. In one way or another -- by military means or economic dominance, by conquest, alliance or silent acquiescence -- they must all be brought to heel, forcibly prevented from "challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

These texts spring from the Dominators' quasi-religious cult of "American exceptionalism," the belief in the unique and utter goodness of the American soul -- embodied chiefly by the nation's moneyed elite, of course -- and the irredeemable, metaphysical evil of all those who would oppose or criticize the elite's righteous (and conveniently self-serving) policies.

Anyone still "puzzled" over the Bush Regime's behavior need only look to these documents for enlightenment. They have long been available to the media -- which accepted Bush's transparent campaign lies about a "more humble foreign policy" at face value -- but have only now started attracting wider notice, in the New Yorker magazine this spring, and this week in the Glasgow Sunday Herald.

The documents explain America's relentless march across Afghanistan, Central Asia and soon into the Middle East. They explain the Bush Regime's otherwise unfathomable rejection of international law, its fanatical devotion to so-called missile defense, its gargantuan increases in military spending -- even its antediluvian energy policy, which mandates the continued primacy of oil and gas in the world economy. (They can't conquer the sun or monopolize the wind, so there's no profit, no leverage for personal gain and geopolitical power in pursuing viable alternatives to oil.) The Sept. 11 attacks gave the Regime a pretext for greatly accelerating this published program of global dominance, but they would have pursued it in any case.

So there will be war: either soon, after the November mid-term elections, or -- in the unlikely event that Iraq's offer of inspections is accepted -- then later, after some "provocation" or "obstruction," no doubt in good time before the 2004 presidential vote. The purse-lipped rhetoric about "liberation" and "moral clarity" is just so much desert sand being thrown in our eyes. Backstage, the Bush Regime is playing Mafia-style hardball, warning reluctant allies to get on board now or else miss out on their cut of the loot when America -- not a "democratic Iraq" -- divvies up Saddam's oil fields: a shakedown detailed this week by the Economist, among many others.

The Dominators dream of empire. Not only will it extend their temporal power, they believe it will also give them immortality. One of their chief gurus, Reaganite firebreather Michael Ledeen, says that if the Dominators reject "clever diplomacy" and "just wage total war" to subjugate the Middle East, "our children will sing great songs about us years from now." This madness, this bin Laden-like megalomania, is now driving the hijacked American republic -- and the world -- to murderous upheaval.

It's all there in the text, set down in black and white.

© Copyright 2002, The Moscow Times.”

“I think this is the thing people need to grasp- the similarity in METHOD- not necessarily the fact that Bush is not a mesmerizing speaker, or that he hasn't written a book (like Hitler's Mein Kampf).

But when you stop letting yourself get distracted by the personal differences, and idiosyncrasies, it's easier to see the parallels in EFFECTS of policy. Perhaps a better way to think of it, in terms of parallels - is the whole Bushie cabinet as 'Hitler' in composite form- and instead of mesmerizing propaganda from a single source (Hitler) masterfully crafted PR and spin - not to mention bogus polls - that perpetually keep the opposition off balance and intimidated.

The overarching blueprint is certainly the same- as my German friend Kurt has often pointed out. The expedient use of a terror theme to justify aggression. The repeal of civil liberties (Hitler abolished the seven freedoms under the German Constitution, Bush et al concocted the Patriot Act). The demonization of a foe to justify aggression, and the use of a general idiom to validate aggression and takeover of other nations. Hitler made reference to "Jews and communists", Bush to "terrorists" and the "axis of evil".

Hitler then followed through by invasion of the Sudetenland, then Poland, then the restof Europe. Bush started with Afghanistan, then Iraq, then probably the entire Middle East that is regarded as 'threat' - including Iran, Syria, Lebanon etc.

And - as with Hitler, there is a palsied opposition so compromised it can do little except to sign on to the madness. Intimidated, and bereft of any manhood or womanhood or scintilla of courage and integrity.

It is clear that all the rhetoric about Hussein being akin to Hitler is only meant to distract the American public from the amoral actions of our own leaders.”

“"Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used." - Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, Germany's justice minister (Reuters news service)”

“The report "Strengthening America's Defenses" mentioned in the Moscow Times op-ed is really “Rebuilding America's Defenses". It’s a 90 page long document that I’ve been reading this week. You can download it (PDF format) http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf" target="_blank">here. I can’t really comment too much as I haven’t read the whole thing but it does explain a lot of administration policy. I’d be interested in discussing this document here if anyone else is.”

“What's to discuss? It's time for ACTION.

The poison pill of the right is going to end up being the fact that they never got around to gun control. When the revolution comes, we the people will speak with ACTION.”

“So you are getting a gun now?”

“my German friend Kurt has often pointed out

Jeez, uh, I wouldn't be putting to much stock into what the Krauts are saying about America these days. It's politically fashionable in Germany to bash everything America does right now.

I’d be interested in discussing this document here if anyone else is

Yeah, I am, but I probably won't get around to reading it until early next week.

Right off hand the 'militarization of space' thing sounds like an excellent idea. Space is America's supreme advanatage and also its achilles heel. We definitely need to boost space defenses and we need to boost our offensive capabilities in space to counter the space-based assets of other nations - e.g. russia and china.”

“January 2, 1939



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adolf Hitler

Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Fuhrerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic conference were Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, Premier Edouard Daladier of France, and Dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy. But by all odds the dominating figure at Munich was the German host, Adolf Hitler.


Fuhrer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth--or as close to the tooth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.


All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year.


Most other world figures of 1938 faded in importance as the year drew to a close. Prime Minister Chamberlain's "peace with honor" seemed more than ever to have achieved neither. An increasing number of Britons ridiculed his appease-the-dictators policy, believed that nothing save abject surrender could satisfy the dictators' ambitions.


Among many Frenchmen there rose a feeling that Premier Daladier, by a few strokes of the pen at Munich, had turned France into a second-rate power. Aping Mussolini in his gestures and copying triumphant Hitler's shouting complex, the once liberal Daladier at year's end was reduced to using parliamentary tricks to keep his job.


During 1938 Dictator Mussolini was only a decidedly junior partner in the firm of Hitler & Mussolini, Inc. His noisy agitation to get Corsica and Tunis from France was rated as a weak bluff whose immediate objectives were no more than cheaper tolls for Italian ships in the Suez Canal and control of the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railroad.


Gone from the international scene was Eduard Benes, for 20 years Europe's "Smartest Little Statesman." Last President of free Czechoslovakia, he was now a sick exile from the country he helped found. Pious Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, Man of 1937, was forced to retreat to a "New" West China, where he faced the possibility of becoming only a respectable figurehead in an enveloping Communist movement. If Francisco Franco had won the Spanish Civil War after his great spring drive, he might well have been Man-of-the-Year timber. But victory still eluded the Generalissimo and war weariness and disaffection on the Rightist side made his future precarious.


On the American scene, 1938 was no one man's year. Certainly it was not Franklin Roosevelt's; his Purge was beaten and his party lost much of its bulge in the Congress. Secretary Hull will remember Good Neighborly 1938 as the year he crowned his trade treaty efforts with the British agreement, but history will not specially identify Mr. Hull with 1938. At year's end in Lima, his plan of Continental Solidarity for the two Americas had a few of its teeth pulled.


But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Fuhrer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.


His shadow fell far beyond Germany's frontier. Small, neighboring States (Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, The Balkans, Luxembourg, The Netherlands) feared to offend him. In France Nazi pressure was in part responsible for some of the post-Munich anti-democratic decrees. Fascism had intervened openly in Spain, had fostered a revolt in Brazil, was covertly aiding revolutionary movements in Rumania, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania. In Finland a foreign minister had to resign under Nazi pressure. Throughout eastern Europe after Munich the trend was toward less freedom, more dictatorship. In the U.S. alone did democracy feel itself strong enough at year's end to give Hitler his come-uppance.


The Fascintern, with Hitler in the driver's seat, with Mussolini, Franco and the Japanese military cabal riding behind, emerged in 1938 as an international, revolutionary movement. Rant as he might against the machinations of international Communism and international Jewry, or rave as he would that he was just a Pan-German trying to get all the Germans back in one nation, Fuhrer Hitler had himself become the world's No. 1 International Revolutionist--so much so that if the oft-predicted struggle between Fascism and Communism now takes place it will be only because two revolutionist dictators, Hitler and Stalin, are too big to let each other live in the same world.


But Fuhrer Hitler does not regard himself as a revolutionary; he has become so only by force of circumstances. Fascism has discovered that freedom--of press, speech, assembly--is a potential danger to its own security. In Fascist phraseology democracy is often coupled with Communism. The Fascist battle against freedom is often carried forward under the false slogan of "Down with Communism!" One of the chief German complaints against democratic Czechoslovakia last summer was that it was an "outpost of Communism."


A generation ago western civilization had apparently outgrown the major evils of barbarism except for war between nations. The Russian Communist Revolution promoted the evil of class war. Hitler topped it by another, race war. Fascism and Communism both resurrected religious war. These multiple forms of barbarism gave shape in 1938 to an issue over which men may again, perhaps soon, shed blood: the issue of civilized liberty v. barbaric authoritarianism.


Lesser men of the year seemed small indeed beside the Fuhrer. Undoubted Crook of the Year was the late Frank Donald Coster (ne Musica), with Richard Whitney, now in Sing Sing Prison, as runner-up. Sportsman of the Year was Tennist Donald Budge, champion of the U.S., England, France, Australia. Aviator of the Year was 33-year-old Howard Robard Hughes, diffident millionaire, who flew a sober, precise, foolproof course 14,716 miles round the top of the world in three days, 19 hours, eight minutes.


Radio's Man of the Year was youthful Orson Welles who, in his famous The War of the Worlds broadcast, scared fewer people than Hitler, but more than had ever been frightened by radio before, demonstrating that radio can be a tremendous force in whipping up mass emotion. Playwright of the Year was Thornton Wilder, previously a precious litterateur, whose first play on Broadway, Our Town, was not only ingenious and moving, but a big hit. To Gabriel Pascal, producer of Pygmalion, first full-length picture based on the wordy dramas of George Bernard Shaw, went the title of Cineman of the Year for having discovered a rich mine of dramatic material when other famed producers had given up all hope of ever tapping it. Men of the Year, outstanding in comprehensive science were three medical researchers who discovered that nicotinic acid was a cure for human pellagra: Drs. Tom Douglas Spies of Cincinnati General Hospital, Marion Arthur Blankenhorn of the University of Cincinnati, Clark Niel Cooper of Waterloo, Iowa.


In religion, the two outstanding figures of 1938 were in sharp contrast save for their opposition to Adolf Hitler. One of them, Pope Pius XI, 81, spoke with "bitter sadness" of Italy's anti-Semitic laws, the harrying of Italian Catholic Action groups, the reception Mussolini gave Hitler last May, declared sadly: "We have offered our now old life for the peace and prosperity of peoples. We offer it anew." By spending most of the year in a concentration camp, Protestant Pastor Martin Niemoller gave courageous witness to his faith.


It was noteworthy that few of these other men of the year would have been free to achieve their accomplishments in Nazi Germany. The genius of free wills has been so stifled by the oppression of dictatorship that Germany's output of poetry, prose, music, philosophy,art has been meagre indeed.


The man most responsible for this world tragedy is a moody, brooding, unprepossessing, 49-year-old Austrian-born ascetic with a Charlie Chaplin mustache. The son of an Austrian petty customs official, Adolf Hitler was raised as a spoiled child by a doting mother. Consistently failing to pass even the most elementary studies, he grew up a half-educated young man, untrained for any trade or profession, seemingly doomed to failure. Brilliant, charming, cosmopolitan Vienna he learned to loathe for what he called its Semitism; more to his liking was homogeneous Munich, his real home after 1912. To this man of no trade and few interests the Great War was a welcome event which gave him some purpose in life. Hitler took part in 48 engagements, won the German Iron Cross (first class), was wounded once and gassed once, was in a hospital when the Armistice of November 11, 1918 was declared.


His political career began in 1919 when he became Member No. 7 of the midget German Labor Party. Discovering his powers of oratory, Hitler soon became the party's leader, changed its name to the National Socialist German Labor Party, wrote is anti- Semitic, anti-democratic, authoritarian program. The party's first mass meeting took place in Munich in February 1920. The leader intended to participate in a monarchist attempt to seize power a month later; but for this abortive Putsch Fuhrer Hitler arrived too late. An even less successful National Socialist attempt--the famed Munich Beer Hall Putsch of 1923--provided the party with dead martyrs, landed Herr Hitler in jail. His incarceration at Landsberg Fortress gave him time to write the first volume of Mein Kampf, now a "must" on every German bookshelf. (Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess helped write it. Imprisonment also gave Hitler time to perfect his tactics. Even before that time he got from his Communist opponents the idea of gangster-like party storm troopers; after this the principle of the small cell groups of devoted party workers.)


Outlawed in many German districts, the National Socialist Party nevertheless climbed steadily in membership. Time-honored Tammany Hall methods of handing out many small favors were combined with rowdy terrorism and lurid, patriotic propaganda. The picture of a mystic, abstemious, charismatic Fuhrer was assiduously cultivated.


Not until 1929 did National Socialism win its first absolute majority in a city election (at Coburg) and make its first significant showing in a provincial election (in Thuringia). But from 1928 on the party almost continually gained in electoral strength. In the Reichstag elections of 1928 it polled 809,000 votes. Two years later 6,401,016 Germans voted for National Socialist deputies while in 1932 the vote was 13,732,779. While still short of a majority, the vote was nevertheless impressive proof of the power of the man and his movement.


The situation which gave rise to this demagogic, ignorant, desperate movement was inherent in the German Republic's birth and in the craving of large sections of the politically immature German people for strong, masterful leadership. Democracy in Germany was conceived in the womb of military defeat. It was the Republic which put its signature (unwillingly) to the humiliating Versailles Treaty, a brand of shame which it never lived down in German minds.


That the German people love uniforms, parades, military formations, and submit easily to authority is no secret. Fuhrer Hitler's own hero is Frederick the Great. That admiration stems undoubtedly from Frederick's military prowess and autocratic rule rather than from Frederick's love of French culture and his hatred of Prussian boorishness. But unlike the polished Frederick, Fuhrer Hitler, whose reading has always been very limited, invites few great minds to visit him, nor would Fuhrer Hitler agree with Frederick's contention that he was "tired of ruling over slaves." (Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor, also complained of the submissiveness of German character.)


In bad straits even in fair weather, the German Republic collapsed under the weight of the 1929-34 depression in which German unemployment soared to 7,000,000 above a nationwide wind drift of bankruptcies and failures. Called to power as Chancellor of the Third Reich on January 30, 1933 by aged, senile President Paul von Hindenburg, Chancellor Hitler began to turn the Reich inside out. Unemployment was solved by: 1) a far-reaching program of public works; 2) an intense re-armament program, including a huge standing army; 3) enforced labor in the service of the State (the German Labor Corps); 4) putting political enemies and Jewish, Communist and Socialist jobholders in concentration camps.


What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to Germany in less than six years was applauded wildly and ecstatically by most Germans. He lifted the nation from post-War defeatism. Under the swastika Germany was unified. His was no ordinary dictatorship, but rather one of great energy and magnificent planning. The "socialist" part of National Socialism might be scoffed at by hard-&-fast Marxists, but the Nazi movement nevertheless had a mass basis. The 1,500 miles of magnificent highways built, schemes for cheap cars and simple workers' benefits, grandiose plans for rebuilding German cities made Germans burst with pride. Germans might eat many substitute foods or wear ersatz clothes but they did eat.


What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to the German people in that time left civilized men and women aghast. Civil rights and liberties have disappeared. Opposition to the Nazi regime has become tantamount to suicide or worse. Free speech and free assembly are anachronisms. The reputations of the once-vaunted German centres of learning have vanished. Education has been reduced to a National Socialist catechism.


Pace Quickened. Germany's 700,000 Jews have been tortured physically, robbed of homes and properties, denied a chance to earn a living, chased off the streets. Now they are being held for "ransom," a gangster trick through the ages. But not only Jews have suffered. Out of Germany has come a steady, ever- swelling stream of refugees, Jews and Gentiles, liberals and conservatives, Catholics as well as Protestants, who could stand Naziism no longer. TIME's cover, showing Organist Adolf Hitler playing his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on, was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper, a Catholic who found Germany intolerable.


Meanwhile, Germany has become a nation of uniforms, goose- stepping to Hitler's tune, where boys of ten are taught to throw hand grenades, where women are regarded as breeding machines. Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.


When Germany took over Austria she took upon herself the care and feeding of 7,000,000 poor relations. When 3,500,000 Sudetens were absorbed, there were that many more mouths to feed. As 1938 drew to a close many were the signs that the Nazi economy of exchange control, barter trade, lowered standard of living, "self-sufficiency," was cracking. Nor were signs lacking that many Germans disliked the cruelties of their Government, but were afraid to protest them. Having a hard time to provide enough bread to go round, Fuhrer Hitler was being driven to give the German people another diverting circus. The Nazi controlled press, jumping the rope at the count of Propaganda Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels, shrieked insults at real and imagined enemies. And the pace of the German dictatorship quickened as more & more guns rolled from factories and little more butter was produced.


In five years under the Man of 1938, regimented Germany had made itself one of the great military powers of the world today. The British Navy remains supreme on the seas. Most military men regard the French Army as incomparable. Biggest question mark is air strength, which changes from day to day, but most observers believe Germany superior in warplanes. Despite a shortage of trained officers and a lack of materials, the German Army has become a formidable machine which could probably be beaten only by a combination of opposing armies. As testimony to his nation's puissance, Fuhrer Hitler could look back over the year and remember that besides receiving countless large-bore statesmen (Mr. Chamberlain three times, for instance), he paid his personal respects to three kings (Sweden's Gustaf, Denmark's Christian, Italy's Vittorio Emanuele) and was visited by two (Bulgaria's Boris, Rumania's Carol--not counting Hungary's Regent, Horthy).


Meanwhile an estimated 1,133 streets and squares, notably Rathaus Platz in Vienna, acquired the name of Adolf Hitler. He delivered 96 public speeches, attended eleven opera performances (way below par), vanquished two rivals (Benes and Kurt von Schuschnigg, Austria's last Chancellor), sold 900,000 new copies of Mein Kampf in Germany besides selling it widely in Italy and Insurgent Spain. His only loss was in eyesight: he had to begin wearing spectacles for work. Last week Herr Hitler entertained at a Christmas party 7,000 workmen now building Berlin's new mammoth Chancellery, told them: "The next decade will show those countries with their patent democracy where true culture is to be found."


But other nations have emphatically joined the armaments race and among military men the poser is: "Will Hitler fight when it becomes definitely certain that he is losing that race?" The dynamics of dictatorship are such that few who have studied Fascism and its leaders can envision sexless, restless, instinctive Adolf Hitler rounding out a mellow middle age in his mountain chalet at Berchtesgaden while a satisfied German people drink beer and sing folk songs. There is no guarantee that the have-not nations will go to sleep when they have taken what they now want from the haves. To those who watched the closing events of the year it seemed more than probable that the Man of 1938 may make 1939 a year to be remembered.”

“I'm sorry backpacker jr, I really think they're stretching the facts. We're not taking over the world, we already own it!!! We are the superpower, and if we need to make sure by securing areas that are threatening... is that wrong?”

“Itsonlynatural, think about what you are saying! We don't own Iraq any more than we "own" canada. We aren't invading canada!

Your statement sounds alot like a "master nation" propaganda to replace the "mater race" propaganda of Nazi Germany. We have no divine right to dictate the course of world politics or to violate other countries sovereignty!

Wake up! IT CAN HAPPEN HERE!”

“Sorry, I just am not very worried about Bush becoming a dictator. He barely got elected, and would have been creamed if Nader hadn't acted the part of spoiler. If your "Dominators" get too freaky, or if the GOP doesn't act pretty mainstream and moderate, the Dems can retake the presidency just by running a moderate. There are already people screaming about loss of constitutional rights, of visitors to our country and illegal aliens. We gain no territory by military action in Afganistan, its just a clean out of terrorist bases and a terrorist friendly government. We would leave tomorrow if we could. The Americal people have little stomach for protracted warfare, so I wouldn't worry about a Hitler-like plan. It might be somebodies dream, but it's not going to happen.”

“We invaded Haiti, then gave it back.
We invaded Panama, then gave it back.
We invaded Grenada, then gave it back.
We invaded Kuwait, then gave it back.
We invaded Bosnia (sort of), then gave it back.
We invaded Afghanistan, then gave it back.

We also gave up the Panama Canal, and military bases in the Philipines and Japan.

Starting to notice a pattern here? In each case, we kicked out a thuggish dictator, and showed no imperialist tendencies at all. Imperialism is what Russia did to the countries behind the iron curtain, what Japan did to Asia, what the British did to India.”

“Hmmm... is this satire, or unintentional irony??


"I agree, but the harsh, cruel reality of life is the U.S. needs to protect its energy resources at all costs. I'm all for the U.S. doing whatever it takes to do so. The U.S. is the sole superpower in the world. Never before in the history of mankind has a nation had the means to project power globally - militarily, economically, and culturally. That gives the U.S. unprecidented opportunity to do "good" in the world, but its very ability to do so is predicated on having a strong economy and military, which in turn absolutely requires stable, cheap oil resources. If you want the U.S. to be a positive force in the world, then you have to allow the U.S. to take Machiavellian measures to protect its energy resources. There's no other way about it, unless its dependence on foreign sources of energy decreases.

Mutt"”

“Two other thoughts:

1) What doesn't add up right now is the incredible sense of urgency and emergency about Iraq. Ideas about the need to invade Iraq have been floated since Spetember 2001. Now, more than a year later - Bush presents a case for action to the UN and says we don't have time to screw around with inspections. Congress has to pass the recently submitted resolution on Iraq right away. What is there besides the two month political window between the 9/11 anniversary and the US mid-term elections than requires such a rush on proposals made within the last 10 days? It looks like someone is trying to stampede us into a decision. (or maybe, just maybe there is some new intelligence?)

2) I see some familiar names in "Rebuilding America" (thanks for the link, Violin), but the Moscow times article mentions "hard-right players like Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad" and the only one of those four names I see at the end of the document is "Wolfowitz." I'd like to see evidence linking the others to the document. I certainly ain't gonna take the word of some writer for the Moscow times.”

“Ped -

Check out the signatories to the New American Century 1997 Statement of Principles.”

“Alright Viol man, that's the evidence I needed. Now that is an even more interesting list of names!!!”

“Yep, interesting, alright... Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Quayle...”

“Bush really does suck!

Any president who would gut welfare, pursue the strictest Wall Street orthodoxy, admit China into the WTO, endorse NAFTA, delegate the ‘war on drugs’ to our military, raise our prison population to levels that would embarrass a dictator, sign off on Star Wars research and totally sell out to corporate donors is a bum!

…oh, wait a minute…”

“LOL!

Yer next assignment, Violin, is to find out how many of those signatories are connected to Skull and Bones and/or the Illuminatti.”

“I know. I'd already thought of that.

Just what are the reliable conspiracy theory sites anyway?”

“LOL! I think there is a conspiracy to keep the reliable ones out of the search engine data banks.”

“Without America's leadership, the Nazis would rule half the world and the USSR would rule the other half. The UN are irrelevant and powerless. We see more evidence of this every single day. Take this from the UK Independent: "The United Nations is likely to throw into disarray America's war plans for Iraq by introducing a timetable for weapons inspections that could give Saddam Hussein a breathing space of almost 12 months."

One year, at a time when we hear Hussein is a few months from getting nukes. We're going to give him more time, because these fools want to hit the snooze button and hope the storm passes. We're going to give this madman more time to build his war machine, just as Chamberlain gave Hitler more time to build his. The Independent reports, "Tony Blair, who helped to persuade Washington to bring the crisis back under the UN's umbrella, said that he would be hurt if the United States rolls despite the United Nations because the United Nations was Blair's idea." Oh, well, we don't want to "hurt" his feelings, do we?

Folks, the UN can go through these machinations all they want, but we're not going to wait for this snake to get stronger. You heard the president's words early Thursday, (See: The Truth Detector! This Cannot Be Left to Liberals) This is the United Nations simply siding with a renegade because they fear standing up to him. Remember, over half of the UN's member nations are run by dictators just like Saddam Hussein. Only American can lead. No other nation can or will stop evil this great. No other nation ever has.”

“This is a good example of Rush Limbaugh being his usual self:

Without America's leadership, the Nazis would rule half the world and the USSR would rule the other half

Not only revisionist history, but speculation to boot. Ah, but it give us that first good patriotic feeling so we can swallow the rest of the crap Rush is about to throw at us.

The UN are irrelevant and powerless. We see more evidence of this every single day

We see more evidence of our leaders thumbing their noses at international law for the very reason Rush points out here: Power. We have the ability to do so. When Another country does it, it's a "rogue state", though.

We're going to give this madman more time to build his war machine, just as Chamberlain gave Hitler more time to build his.

We have the option of working with the UN to disarm Iraq completely. Are there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? We don't know. Gosh, can't imagine why the international community would want us to have proof before we invade another country.

Remember, over half of the UN's member nations are run by dictators just like Saddam Hussein.

God. First, I don't have the data to disprove that,and can't spend the time to do so, but it sure sounds like crap to me. Second, we don't have to convince the entire UN, we have to convince the security council.”

“What a fat gas bag Rush is. You might as well quote George W. Bush.

Strat: Check today's oil prices. They jumped 14 cents a barrel on speculation of what's about to occur.

Bush has to have his regime change or he won't be satisfied. He's made that abundantly clear from the get-go. I just pray when they land those Jolly Green Giants in the desert, the SCUD with a nuke doesn't land and take out the First Air Calv.”

“I can't believe Phaedrus wasted his time reading any of that $#!+.

All I can say is, "I'm glad *I* didn't step in it".”

“Maybe we should get a TT death pool goin on which military units will be whacked first. 1st Armored, 82nd Airborne, 7th I.D., I mean the possiblities are endless, we could make a link from this site to a yahoo board so we can jsut click over to see we are winning. I love watching war from my cozy couch. Its like watching Die-Hard...”

“Back to reality now...

I really dont like shove it down my throat approach being used regarding Iraq. If he has the big ugly we will know soon enough , if not he wont have it next thursday. Lets take the advise of Simon and Garfunkle and "slow down, you move to fast. You got to make the moment last..."

I am still not convinced, quotes from Rush and other pundits arent gonna sway me (not like anyone gives a rip what I think) I would much rather hear what some intelligence community,and middle eastern experts have to say.

If I recall correct Israel solved Iraqs nuke problem once before.”

“Here's the plan. We are going to starve the public sector so that government becomes much smaller and less intrusive. That's right out of the conservative bible.
BUT, we are going to give broader powers to the FBI and CIA to investigate the citizens of the USA without probable cause. In fact, in our crusade to have a smaller government, we are going to create a whole new agency that will have its own cabinet post.
Then, we are going to stuff so much money up the Pentagon's @$$ they won't know what to do with it all. Well, maybe the military should not be controlled by the people any more, because that takes (eeeeek!!!) GOVERNMENT to oversee the military and make them responsible to the people of the United States.
Let's top it all off with a little war in Iraq, where we can get rid of a few thousand bombs that only cost us millions and millions of dollars. Every day that our troops are deployed over there, (read, no end strategy, just what GW criticized the former administration for), we can spend, spend, spend, spend.
(I'm sure that the word "spend" is familiar to all of the conservatives out there!)
Somehow, this just doesn't make sense to me.”

“rosey, that's a barrell, i'm talkin per gallon prices. the economy is growing. look it up. also, someones weight hasnothing to do with anything. i thought libs were sposed to be sencitive..?



phaed, just because you don't believe something doesn't make it false. you are contrtary and i can proove it.


tilt ,typically of lefties ,you are a fraidycat to look at opposing viewpoints. how odd. i am dissapointed. seems rather intellectually lazy.”

“Actually, the price of gas typically drops when the economy is in trouble. Demand goes down due to decreased economic activity and prices drop.”

“remember the carter years? i do.”

“Washington Post Editorial -- Iraq's Defiance



Dateline: November 03, 1998

Saddam Hussein now has taken the final step in breaking his promises of cooperation with the United Nations. He had for three months been blocking surprise inspections by U.N. arms experts trying to ferret out his clandestine nuclear- biological- and chemical-weapons programs. Now he has said he will block even the regular, announced visits by U.N. monitors whose work had been continuing. Absent a response from the Clinton administration and the United Nations, nothing now will impede Saddam Hussein's ambitions to maintain and rebuild the weapons of mass destruction he promised to give up.

Secretary of Defense William Cohen said that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan "should be concerned because his credibility and that of the Security Council is on the line." Mr. Annan's spokesman immediately sought to deflect the responsibility. The squabbling was unseemly and discouraging. In fact, Mr. Annan's credibility is on the line, but President Clinton's is more so. It was Mr. Clinton who sent Mr. Annan to Baghdad last February to defuse a similar crisis; it was Mr. Clinton who promised a military response if Saddam Hussein violated the agreement Mr. Annan negotiated; and it was Mr. Clinton who failed to respond when Iraq shredded the pact in August.

No wonder Iraq's vice president can say, "Iraq does not fear the threat of the United States because it has been threatening Iraq for the past eight years."

The United States must respond with force if Iraq does not allow U.N. teams - passive monitors and surprise inspectors alike - to resume their work. It should respond as part of a U.N.-backed alliance if possible, alone if necessary. Its bombing campaign should not be symbolic but designed to destroy as much of Saddam Hussein's capability to make and use weapons of mass destruction as possible. Yes, even such a serious military effort might end with Saddam Hussein still in and U.N. inspectors still out. That is why a serious strategy to deal with Iraq must include a willingness to bomb more than once, if Saddam Hussein again tries to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction.

A serious strategy also must include support for Iraqis seeking to replace Saddam Hussein's criminal regime with something more democratic and less bellicose. Mr. Clinton, in signing the Iraq Liberation Act on Saturday, vowed support for such a transformation and said, "The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

This is not a matter of the United States and other countries meddling without right in Iraq's internal affairs. Iraq began this by invading Kuwait. The United Nations authorized a U.S.-led military campaign to reverse that aggression. Having defeated Iraq's army, the United States chose to accept, in place of Saddam Hussein's total surrender and relinquishing of power, his pledge to disarm. His failure after all these years to honor that pledge gives the United Nations every right to reconsider its merciful cease-fire terms.”

“Dateline: November 17, 1998

So here we are again. The United States musters its forces and rallies its allies, Saddam Hussein promises to cooperate, the United States re-leashes its forces. This time is different, the Clinton administration says, because the Iraqi dictator is more isolated - and because if he breaks his promise, the United States won't hesitate to use force. "If it doesn't work, we are prepared to act, as the president indicated," national security adviser Sandy Berger said Sunday.

That sounded a lot like what he said eight months ago: "Failure to allow the inspectors to go where they want, when they want will result in the use of serious force." What is different this time around is President Clinton's hints of a new strategy aiming at the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi dictator represents a threat to his region and the world, Mr. Clinton said Sunday. The best way to address that threat is through a "new government" in Baghdad. The United States will now "intensify" its efforts to work with Iraq's opposition, he said.

Mr. Clinton's assessment of Saddam Hussein is correct. But until recently, the administration didn't see much merit in targeting his regime. Back in March, Mr. Berger said of a direct campaign, "I am convinced the costs - in blood, treasure and political isolation - are not justified." Of war by proxy, he warned of "the dangers of starting something we were not prepared to finish."

Has Mr. Clinton now re-weighed those dangers, or was he speaking out of frustration at having been played with by Saddam Hussein again? Is he really committed to helping the opposition, or was he trying to put the best spin on the latest standoff? If he is serious, it means a sustained commitment and a willingness to use U.S. troops at least in a supporting role. If he is not, it is worse than reckless to embolden those who may expect U.S. assistance when none may be forthcoming.

The administration's claims of success in this latest round find themselves burdened by its record of deception, bluster and inconsistency. Not only tactics but goals, too, have shifted with time. Last February the administration also claimed to have won a clear victory when in fact it had accepted serious infringements on U.N. arms inspectors' freedoms. It claimed to be supporting an aggressive inspections regime when in fact it was pressuring the inspectors to avoid confrontations with Saddam Hussein. After Iraq booted the inspectors in August, the administration shifted its stated goal from depriving Saddam Hussein of his weapons to maintaining the economic sanctions on his regime. U.S. officials began questioning an inspection regime's chance of success.

Now the administration is back to championing access for inspectors as the most important goal and to deriding the efficacy of bombing. If the inspectors truly are allowed to do their job, with Iraqi cooperation, that certainly will be preferable to inconclusive bombing. But Saddam Hussein has made clear that maintaining and acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are his primary goals, more important to him than the lifting of sanctions, the welfare of the Iraqi people or anything else. Unlike other tyrants today, he also has been willing to use such poison weapons. He may tolerate what Scott Ritter called the illusion of arms control. But he will part with his weapons of mass destruction only when compelled to do so.”