Ireland's OWN: History

 

10 March 2003 Bush and Hitler Reprinted here with permission Whenever I equate George Bush with Adolph Hitler many immediately conclude the comparison is little more than hyperbole with a liberal sprinkling of exaggeration. You can almost hear minds slamming shut and rational discourse being terminated, even though the analogy is quite valid in many respects. The degree to which capitalist propaganda has managed to deceive millions as to the quintessence of fascist ideology in general and Hitler in particular is stupendous and to note as much is to utter an understatement of the first magnitude. My detractors ignore the obvious fact that I am not talking about gas chambers, mass executions, slave labor camps, or a one-party police state. The US has not arrived at that stage yet. But I am talking about stages which have been attained fully corroborating my thesis that Bush is comparable to Hitler in many critical respects such as the following: First, Bush, like Hitler confronting the allies prior to WWII, keeps making one demand after another of the Iraqi government and is never satisfied. As each demand is met Bush, like Hitler, moves the bar a little higher fully intent on making it as unreachable as possible while trying to appear as conciliatory as feasible to the world community. Second, Bush, like Hitler, threatens war if his demands are not met. His attitude is that others will comply with his demands or face military consequences. Third, just as Hitler used the bogus excuse that Germans were being oppressed in order to justify invasion, Bush is using the bogus excuse that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction. Both are lying because neither has provided proof for his allegations. Fourth, just as Hitler claimed that he had proof after invading other nations that his claims of German persecution were vindicated Bush will manufacture lies to the effect that the US has found weapons banned by the UN after Iraq is invaded. Since Bush and Hitler have complete control of the areas seized both can claim anything deemed expedient and confront no voices to the contrary. In other words, after the seizures are completed and total control has been established, both use lying propaganda to prove their prior claims were correct. Fifth, 8 months after the Bush regime came into power the 9/11 partial destruction of a government building, the Pentagon, as well as two buildings in New York, occurred resulting in a tremendous curtailment of civil rights and civil liberties, while 1 month after Hitler came to power the German government's Reichstag Parliament Building was burned down providing the fascists with an opportunity to vastly restrict free speech, free press, and civil liberties. Both Bush and Hitler used destructive acts by opponents as pretexts to curtail freedoms. Sixth, the limitations on contrary voices imposed by Hitler are well known but the governmentally directed behind-the-scenes firing of nationally recognized comedian Bill Maher and the abolishment of his TV program, Politically Incorrect, because of his perfectly valid comment regarding the destructions of the buildings on 9/11 and the termination of the only nationally viewed TV program critical of the Bush policy toward Iraq hosted by the well known liberal Phil Donahue are unmistakable signs of fascist repression. Seventh, just as Hitler's generals used the Spanish Civil War to test out new weapons and freely admitted as much, Bush's general's are eagerly awaiting an opportunity to test out their new weapons under battlefield conditions in Iraq and they, too, freely concede as much. Eighth, and very important, Hitler dropped out of the League of Nations when it did not vote as he desired and proceeded to become an international outlaw by defying League mandates. If Bush's policy toward Iraq is rejected by the UN and Bush attacks anyway, the US will officially become what Germany became, an outlaw, rogue state defying international law. Ninth, Bush, like Hitler is acting in clear defiance of world opinion. Even in his own country Bush is only able to muster what support he has through a virtual monopoly of all national propaganda agencies and a phalanx of talking heads, news commentators, news anchors, editorial writers, talk show hosts, and opinion makers financed by the ruling class. Tenth, even some descriptive terms adopted by the Bush regime exhibit a decidedly fascist tone. Naming a new cabinet level agency The Department of Homeland Security is definitely reminiscent of fascist terminology. Eleventh and lastly, Bush is very right-wing ideologically while Hitler was extremely right-wing ideologically, a fact that is of major significance. Three final somewhat related considerations are of critical importance. First, in June 1950 North Korea was accused by the UN of engaging in unprovoked aggression against South Korea which prompted a vote by the United Nations to attack North Korea, even though the North was trying to unite through a civil war a nation that had been artificially divided by foreign powers. To be logical, consistent, fair, just, and credible it obviously follows that if the United States executes an unprovoked attack upon Iraq, which is nowhere near the United States, the United Nations should declare war upon the United States for being an outlaw aggressor nation. After all that's what they did with North Korea. Second, if the United States attacks Iraq contrary to UN votes and with impunity, all other nations will henceforth be fully within their rights to attack any nation they deem a potential threat, even when not an actual or proven threat. In essence, preemptive wars will become legal and the world will have entered an entirely new era in international military relations. If Germany, for example, decided Poland represented a threat because of what the Germans "thought' the Poles might do with weapons they "thought" the Poles might have, that would be perfectly understandable. After all the United States would have done so without any adverse reprisals. And lastly, by invading Iraq the message the United States would be sending to other nations the US wishes to "disaram" is quite clear. Simply stated it would be: No matter how many demands you meet, no matter what you may destroy, we will invade regardless. The conclusion that will be drawn by nations threatened by the US in the future is equally clear. They will resist from the outset and war will become far more likely early on. After all since they know they are going to be attacked no matter what concessions are made and no amount of material destruction is going to dissuade in any event, why would any nation destroy weapons they could very well need. for the cause, Klo Page updated 30 Mar 2008 Ireland's OWN Logo by Eamann Website Design and Celtic Background by Míchealín Daugherty Copyright © 2008 Ireland's OWN All Rights Reserved.