[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[ba-unrev-talk] [Fwd: Re: Fw: The New Nazis- commentary by Bill O'Reilly]

[rough, inter-linear commentary on an article forwarded to me by my sister]
  
THIS WAS SENT TO ME FROM A JEWISH FRIEND IN CLEVELAND WHO'S PARENTS WERE IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
----- Original
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:22 AM
Subject: The New Nazis- commentary by Bill O'Reilly

The New Nazis
Intellivu presents commentary by Bill O'Reilly

It is absolutely eerie
This is a mere subjective feeling; I, for example, don't experience it. It suggests that the following "argument"
will not be based on rational principles, but on personal feelings. Sure WE have feelings about things, but these
are not necessarily YOUR THOUGHTS about them (that is, those thoughts not corrected by the thinking of others)
how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of The Third Reich 70 years ago.
one of the first mentions of Hitlerism was made by a high ranking German official, a woman btw, in regards to George W. Bush. My point here is merely that the Third Reich argument can be made on either side.
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.
but this is too serious a consideration for someone to be displaying their "cuteness" in phrases like "Hitler Lite." This is
not one of those situations where it is a virtue not to "take it seriously."  

But (continuing) unfortunately, far too many unenlightened, and especially Arab leaders are anti-Semitic (still and truly, the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis is to my understanding one of the most brutal treatments of a people by another people in history)
The only difference between the two villains is the size of the moustache.
Not only a) more inappropriate ridiculousness, but b) hyperbole--there are no doubt many differences, and c) the total equation of the one "villains" character with the others (not that they are not both pretty horrible villains; but so is George Bush).
Back in the 1930s, millions of people the world over simply did not want to think about the evil Hitler was brewing up. France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they are today on the Iraq question.
This equation of the past with the present is ludicrous and prejudiced. The entire passage is far from the truth. Today we are ALL thinking about the evil that is being "brewed" in the world. But the personification of it in Saddam Hussain is ludicrous and opportunistic for Bush. It keeps him from thinking about the nightmarish quality of our domestic economy, etc., etc., etc. (each of the etceteras demanding a long discussion of its own)
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 U.N. mandates. Britain went along with France in the '30s, but now it seems the United Kingdom has learned from its historical mistakes.
The very different historical situations--Saddam has no power, is surrounded, is saying yes to inspections, etc.--shows the author wanting to make a historical connection for rhetorical purposes, and it just isn't valid to do so.
And then there's the Pope. John Paul II recently came out and said that any war against Iraq would be "immoral."
Any Christian--and I consider myself to be one--must in his or her soul oppose war as anything but a last resort. Bush has not in any way shown this to be so. To whip up fears, to demonize as the ultimate Demon--Saddam Hussain, is nothing more than propaganda. Since the right owns the media they can do this, but it is not necessarily closely related to "the truth of the matter." There are many horrible regimes--Bush's included, thought not quite so brutal (but ask all the young black and Hispanic men in prison, etc; --and some regimes this country has contributed to creating--even and especially Saddam Hussain]s--read your history, for heavens sake!), but to wage war preemptively on Iraq is irrational in the extreme. Meanwhile, Christianity must abhor war.
Back in the '30s, 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.
Popes are just men. This is not one of Roman Catholicism's brightest moments--there are indeed many horrendous ones. All "institutions of men (sic)" tend to do horrible things. But how this relates to the present Pope's position, I don't fathom.
Today, John Paul deplores the violence that comes with any war
Exactly!
but is at a loss to explain how terrorism and the states that enable it should be dealt with.
There are, however, many--including Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 crew came from--but our oil interests there are too important for the truth of the matter to fully surface. In short, the USA is one of the "states that enable it" (there are other arguments here as well. . .)
Remember, the Pope did not approve of the military action against the Taliban.
Again:
John Paul deplores the violence that comes with any war
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.
Again, the two do not parallel each other. But since this author says so little in support of his position maintaining this (that is evidence and arguments supporting his, so far, mere "opinion"), I have little to work on to counter it.
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 Heinrich 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."
Taking the phrase "there was no 'smoking gun' " is a rhetorical device meant to conflate these two historical situations which are so very different (but are pretending not to be in the author's analysis).
The failure to confront the obvious evil of the Nazis early, of course, led to the deaths of more than 55,000,000 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.
His point? If the parallel held this would be stunning and my support for the war would be irresistible and complete. But this is just a rhetorical parallel--poetical propaganda.
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?
Al Qaeda does not in any way == Saddam Hussain, and to bring them together in ANY significant way has not been proved by anything but the author's rhetoric.  Again, why single out Hussain, amongst all the "evil" dictators--why not look to North Korea--and there are many others, perhaps even some developing nuclear capabilities?
It continues to astound me that 37 percent 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.
This is to say, that over a third of Americans do not believe in simple-minded arguments nor unilateral action. Actually, most Americans do not approve of a preemptive strike against Iraq without UN Security Council approval. For one thing, the cost to "do it alone" will be just too great for this country (but what do the Bushites care? There only in it for the rich--this is as well as proved: see the New York Times editorial pages of today and recently). Meanwhile, the economy is a bloody wreck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean, why allow a dictator who has weapons that would make Hitler salivate. . .
. . .not yet proved re: Saddam. PS How about North Korean?
. . .remain a threat to the world?
By this logic, we should preemptively wage war on any number of countries. . .including North Korea.
Does it make sense that Cameroon has to sign on before we neutralize this threat?
Wha??????????????????????????


If France, German, China and Russia would support the United States against Saddam, he'd already be out of power.
Wha???????????????????????????????????
If France, Russia and Britain had marched into Germany in 1933, there would have been no World War or Holocaust.
Wha???????????????????????????????????


Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war.
That is for sure: and, again, the argument that follows from this would be VERY different coming from this writer or, say, from me:
But we can learn from history.
No doubt. For example, the very principle just expressed above--that the consequences of war can't be predicted. (I won't even mention one of the horrible possibilities here since I'd rather not think of dead youth, broken infrastructures, and devastated economies--including our OWN!)
Evil has a way of killing people; that's a fact.
War 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.
There are several ways of being "just and courageous" and it is insulting to anyone who argues reasonably that there are in fact alternatives to this proposed war, that they are somehow "unjust" and "uncourageous." Now, that sort of thing is exactly like "Hitlerism."



© 2003 BillOReilly.com.