war analogies (my $0.03 canadian)
Mar. 19th, 2003 04:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johncomicim just thinking out loud here so please forgive any looseness that makes its way in....
i recently read something about george w's remarks about the UN members who wanted to hold out for more time to make the weapons inspections in iraq work. something along the lines of "you're making the same mistake that the european allies made with hitler, not hanging tough" etc...
i always get a little leery when people start comparing anything to the nazis or WW2 or whatever... cuz that situation was so black-and-white morally, the world has rarely seen a comparable situation since. hitler was actually invading and conquering neighboring nations (austria, poland, etc.) and england and france and all were sitting there letting him -- with the idea that once he was full he'd quit eating. it wasnt till he went after france that they finally stood up to him, by which time he had this huge power base to work from.
so yeah, the british shouldve acted sooner and stopped diddling around with "diplomatic relations" with adolf. but the fact remains that germany was actually doing something to someone else. they werent just a threat, they were a realized threat. there was explicit reason to act, to push germany back and save the innocent nations and all...
i mean, if i wanted to i could compare bush's foreign policy with hitler's without too much trouble. iraq represents a potential threat to america, as he puts it, so the best thing to do is strike first and take saddam out before he can actually do anything. how saddam threatens the usa more now than he did two years ago or five years ago isnt clear... what he can actually do to america isnt clear... how driving him out of iraq and occupying it makes america any safer from al qaeda isnt clear...
similarly, the reason hitler was annexing poland et al was in the name of Lebensraum: someday germany would need more "living space", and the countries next door were in a position to deprive them of it by not sharing their land... so the best thing to do is strike first and take the land so we know we've got it when we need it...
same thing: "these guys might be trouble later so lets wipe em out now"...
the trouble with hitler analogies is that they cut so many different ways... youre probably better off to just not resort to them in the first place...
ps: for the record, i personally think that saddam was given more than enough chances to co-operate and consistently blew it so he doesnt deserve more time now. he is a game player and bullshit artist and has been allowed to get away with it way too long. in fact, i could never understand why bush senior ever let more than a year go by with saddam dragging his sorry butt... that was the time to move in on iraq in force, when the gulf war was still fresh and needing to be decisively resolved. to let him screw around for twelve years, to let him kick out the weapons inspectors ten years ago and now suddenly he's an Urgent Matter that needs action within a few weeks just looks really odd, and undermines america's moral authority in attacking now ["if you could wait twelve years, why cant you wait one more month?"]
but i am saying that the reasons given for attacking him now instead of back then when he needed to be mopped up after kuwait just sound "not quite right".... some frank talk from the administration would go a long way right now...
i recently read something about george w's remarks about the UN members who wanted to hold out for more time to make the weapons inspections in iraq work. something along the lines of "you're making the same mistake that the european allies made with hitler, not hanging tough" etc...
i always get a little leery when people start comparing anything to the nazis or WW2 or whatever... cuz that situation was so black-and-white morally, the world has rarely seen a comparable situation since. hitler was actually invading and conquering neighboring nations (austria, poland, etc.) and england and france and all were sitting there letting him -- with the idea that once he was full he'd quit eating. it wasnt till he went after france that they finally stood up to him, by which time he had this huge power base to work from.
so yeah, the british shouldve acted sooner and stopped diddling around with "diplomatic relations" with adolf. but the fact remains that germany was actually doing something to someone else. they werent just a threat, they were a realized threat. there was explicit reason to act, to push germany back and save the innocent nations and all...
i mean, if i wanted to i could compare bush's foreign policy with hitler's without too much trouble. iraq represents a potential threat to america, as he puts it, so the best thing to do is strike first and take saddam out before he can actually do anything. how saddam threatens the usa more now than he did two years ago or five years ago isnt clear... what he can actually do to america isnt clear... how driving him out of iraq and occupying it makes america any safer from al qaeda isnt clear...
similarly, the reason hitler was annexing poland et al was in the name of Lebensraum: someday germany would need more "living space", and the countries next door were in a position to deprive them of it by not sharing their land... so the best thing to do is strike first and take the land so we know we've got it when we need it...
same thing: "these guys might be trouble later so lets wipe em out now"...
the trouble with hitler analogies is that they cut so many different ways... youre probably better off to just not resort to them in the first place...
ps: for the record, i personally think that saddam was given more than enough chances to co-operate and consistently blew it so he doesnt deserve more time now. he is a game player and bullshit artist and has been allowed to get away with it way too long. in fact, i could never understand why bush senior ever let more than a year go by with saddam dragging his sorry butt... that was the time to move in on iraq in force, when the gulf war was still fresh and needing to be decisively resolved. to let him screw around for twelve years, to let him kick out the weapons inspectors ten years ago and now suddenly he's an Urgent Matter that needs action within a few weeks just looks really odd, and undermines america's moral authority in attacking now ["if you could wait twelve years, why cant you wait one more month?"]
but i am saying that the reasons given for attacking him now instead of back then when he needed to be mopped up after kuwait just sound "not quite right".... some frank talk from the administration would go a long way right now...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 01:36 pm (UTC)Well, Bush hasn't made it clear, but it's fairly clear.
By acquiring enormous military force relative to his immediate neighbor nations, Hussein, a known madman, could conceivably assume control of one third to one half of the world's oil supply through force, thus sodomizing the process of supply-and-demand economics that currently determines price.
All of the West and certainly America is completely dependent on oil and cannot tolerate such a threat. So Hussein's history as a tyrant and America's supposed vulnerability to terrorism are trotted out to justify his overthrow.
This is why Bush doesn't care a lick about North Korea, run by a comparable madman with superior military force. Nobody stays up nights worrying about what happens to America when the Hyundai factories fall into the wrong hands.
This is also why Bush cannot resist mentioning a future reduction on America's foreign fuel dependency in practically the same breath as a comparison between Hussein and Hitler. It's very much the same as the Michael Jackson interview...
Jackson statement: I have a disease.
Bush statement: Hussein must be stopped before deploying weapons of mass destruction against US.
Jackson truth: Bleaches skin.
Bush truth: Cannot allow Hussein to assume control of world oil supply.
Jackson giveaway: Cannot resist pointing out white people try to change the color of their skin via tanning (so, by extension, why should anyone care about his bleaching?)
Bush giveaway: Cannot resist promising a future reduction in dependence on oil, because in public speaking, he can't help but make a free associational jump from his public justification rhetoric to the real reasons.