Are Hitler comparisons still unpopular?

Now we have concentration camps, with abuse and torture, and it's being defended by Bush's party. And now we have the national diversion to create anger (a man, interestingly, whose family believed he was being held illegally by the US), so we can bury the story. So now are we justified in increasing the torture? Are we justified in escalating our revenge, launching more aggressive attacks? Will this be used to justify Syria?

What's the next step? Or is there a point beyond which Bush won't go?

Nazi with the average Murican, for very good reasons they will recoil

You will go nowhwere

Strategically present all the info to them and then let them reach the conclusion on their own

as the pieces start falling into place, they may remember, and start making the connection.

I don't know about you, but every death, beating and rape over there, of our or their troops or civilians, strikes me as my fault. It's my tax dollars slaughtering them. It's for my gas consumption, for my way of life, that it's happening. And even though I have not at any point from beginning to end waivered in total rejection of the invasion, I still benefit from it.

I take it personally. Very personally. I don't much care if my term makes people recoil. I'm more worried about it catching their attention, so that they will at least know they heard my honest, dare I say learned, opinion.

Now true, Kerry couldn't say it, not yet, not as long as he has a chance to win. On the other hand, if he begins to trail, so that his campaign becomes a protest and not a serious campaign, then he can say it, and should. But I can say it now.

Bush to 1944 Hitler.

I do think a fairly valid comparison can be made between Bush and 1939 Hitler though.

is to eiher Germany circa 1936 -7

Or to Italy

And far more specific but far less known

Japan... our corps hold way too many similiarties to the Zaibatsus
and the control of the Yakuza on it.

Image: Nazi Poster for the 1932 Presidential Election - "Our Last Hope: Hitler".

Image: Nazi Poster for the Reichstag elections of 1928

Do we wait until Bush achieves everything Hitler did before we note that he is heading that way?

Which means if you compare something to the Nazis/Hitler, you look idiotic if they have not systematically killed millions of civilians.

...is quantitative, not qualitative.

But Bush has always been an underachiever, so that's not terribly surprising. Give him time, and he will probably catch up.

Call Bush a fascist and I'll listen to you, but calling him a Nazi is ridiculously over the top.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the difference. I know the difference, but I don't see it.

The holocaust defined the Nazis and made them arguably the most evil regime in history.

The dismantling of democracy, stifling of dissent, and invasion of other countries is not what made them the most evil regime ever, that's been done before and since by countless people.

of people in general. FOX at one point early in the invasion estimated we had killed a hundred thousand troops in Iraq alone. Robert Young Pelton early on in Afghanistan estimated tens of thousands of troops dead in Afghanistan, and said Americans would be stunned by how many dead there were. We know of the container cars incident, that led to 3000 deaths by itself. How many were killed in our shelling of Mazar a sharif? Thousands? A hundred thousand seems a conservative estimate for the total dead in Afghanistan.

Two hundred thousand dead soldiers and forty thousand dead civilians in less than three years and two wars?

How many more do we have to kill before Bush becomes Hitler? Where was Hitler by this point? 1936. Anyone know?

Nowhere near that figure! The point is, one is too fucking many, if it is for no valid reason other than their natural resources! In case nobody noticed every reason Bush gave to invade Iraq was a bare faced lie! To lie on someone and then go and whack them is the kinds of things the Nazis were found guilty of by the Allied War Crimes Tribunals at Nuremberg and they were hanged or shot for it! Now the GOPers seem to be guilty of the exact same types crimes!

They are killing thousands in Iraq over a pack of lies! At this rate it's just a matter of time! The idiots are in charge! The shit they are doing to unarmed POWs in Iraq is exactly what the GESTAPO and the SS did all over Europe and Russia! They "Softned People Up"

Even if the killed one thousand a week it would take 230 YEARS to catch up to the Nazis.

A matter of time! How many did Poppy kill?

A quarter of a million in Iraq, only 2000 in Panama.

Give or take a few thousand. Who counts when they aren't American, right?

Two Bushes, less than eight years, and close to half a million dead, not counting those who died as a result of destroying the infrastructure in a dessert going into summer. No AC, no water. Do the math.

You are talking numbers. I'm talking essence. Given the chance, would Bush have any moral impediment to killing as many Muslims as Hitler killed Jews? Or of taking over as many countries, for the same reasons, I might add?

You say 230 years. I say one minute, with one nuke. Would he do it? Do we wait that long to make the comparison?

Waging aggressive war was one of the most common war crimes charged at Nuremberg.

Execution of POW's was another.

Violations of the Geneva Convention was another.

Crimes against civilians in occupied territory was another.

Personally, I don't think Bush will ever commit a holocaust-like event.

But a lot of people were jailed/executed at Nuremberg for war crimes that had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is what defined the Nazis as the world's most evil regime, everything else is aggressive fascism.

However, the fact that Hitler conquered most of Europe, parts of Africa, and nearly took the USSR certainly defined Nazi Germany as well.

Stalin killed nearly as many in his purges. Mao was probably right up there.

But comparisons to Stalin and Mao are rare because they didn't impose their outrages on citizens from dozens of occupied countries.

Would Hitler have been remembered as he is if he had committed the Holocaust against German Jews, but never invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, North Africa, Greece, and Russia?

Personally, I doubt most people would be using him as an example today if that was the case.

from 1933 to 1943....took some time....but it started out like this

I just don't think its inevitable.

We now have the internet. Except they (government) has been talking about the flaws and how it could go down or break. Which is telling me they plan to knock out our communications or control them more.

i see now all they need do is getting re elected,s tart the draft, adn bring in all our youth and start there battles here and there and everywhere, and no more election

They are quite appropriate



http://sludgereport.blogspot.com/

You just have to be careful to use Hitler comparisons against only Democrats.

Otherwise, it's reprehensible.

--bkl

Ever been to a bar or restaurant where they have a chalk-board above the urinals? Well, on a few occasions now I've written: "Bush = Hitler"

When I came back later, on all occasions, that was the only thing on the board that got nixed by someone who came in after me.

We're still not yet at the point where a "Bush = Hitler" comparison would be justified. And even if it was, comparing anything to Hitler is so facile that to some degree it's lost its meaning -- that's why there's Godwin's Law. That's why I'd prefer to find less over-the-top, and thus more effective comparisons.

I don't think comparing Bush to Mussolini is too much of a stretch. Other comparisons I like to make are:

-- Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox/et al => Pravda/Izvestia
-- Another comparison would be to Germany, not before WW2 but before WW1 (which essentially CAUSED Hitler to rise in the first place).
-- Moron-Americans who support Bush and listen to Limbaugh => the insane Japanese nationalists in the '20s and '30s who were responsible for shit like the Rape of Nanking

ON EDIT: Oh, and if you REALLY want to infuriate Freepers, here's another suggestion: how about we start comparing them to Palestinians who support Hamas and suicide bombers. That comparison seems especially apt now that they're going into contortions to justify the torture of Iraqi prisoners.

When I hear Hannity, Limbaugh, Senator James Inhofe, etc. justify what happened at Abu Ghraib, I think they're using exactly the same rhetoric as Palestinians who use Israeli military incursions to justify sending suicide bombers to kill Israeli schoolkids and mothers on civilian city buses.

ON SECOND EDIT: I already compared neocon Rethugs to Japanese militarists who started the Pacific side of WW2, but I'd forgotten that Japan at the time was also a fascist state, until I clicked on Cronus's link below.

http://cronus.com/fascism


---------------------------------
http://Georgebushjokes.com
http://abortionissues.com
http://chelsea-clinton.com
http://dem2004.org
http://demcrats.com
http://democraticissues.com
http://dickandbush.com
http://george-walker-bush.com
http://georgebush04.com
http://humanrightsviolations.com
http://impeachgeorgebush.com
http://mccainforpresident.com
http://politicalinterestgroups.com
http://presidentialscandals.com
http://priminister.com
http://radicalcheerleaders.com
http://religiousright.org
http://republicanchat.com
http://repulican.com
http://swingvoter.com
http://vote4bush.com
http://voteforbush.com

... n/t