Geo wrote:

Are you positive he's killing MILLIONS of people?

Yes, he's killed millions. Half a million Iraqis in the Iran/Iraq war, several million starved children due to his policies, etc.

The only torture of Millions that I've seen is they arn't as rich and lack our common items, like a computer or something, other than that he most likely has tortured allot of people, but I would definitly not say millions.

These are documented numbers, and have nothing to do with whether Iraqis get as many premium cable channels as we do.

A favorite torture his son, Qusay, likes to employ is dropping people feet first into a plastic shredder. Feet first because then you get to hear them scream as they are ground up.

With Hitler, it was definitly a differant thing, America was one of the later countries to join I beleive, and everyone was positive he was the "bad guy". The problem with this war already is it's just like Vietnam, it doesn't have enough people who support it and is devided into doves/hawks.

Actually people felt that nothing should be done to stop Hitler, that if we just left him alone things would be fine, etc. There were protests against the war, and even after Pearl Harbor the majority of Americans did not support joining the war. Also, many, including in America felt like "At least Hitler knows how to treat the Jews."

Also interesting that unlike Hitler, Saddam pretty much succeeded at killing all his Jews. That was one of the things that originally got him noticed in Iraq.

So, as it happens, the public's approach to Saddam is pretty much the same as it was to Hitler. Thankfully the government moved against Hitler anyway, and are now moving against Saddam.

The fact that the "Arab world's" take on things differs from the "Western world's" doesn't prove anything... even Al-Jazeera, the closest thing to independent Arab media, has to avoid stepping on any toes and the Arab world is as sharply divided as the Western one about this. If we're looking at Western media, the basic facts being reported are the same in the French news as they are on the American news.

I realize the machine is metaphorical, it's awfully disingenuous of you to assume that's where my confusion lies when I ask you to point the machine out to me. You still have yet to furnish any proof or evidence, or anything that even substantively implies that the "machine" exists. The media is thousands or even millions of opposing forces in motion... it's chaos barely held in check. It's not controlled by anything. It's too big.

The government wants to look good. The government wants support. These are not horrible, deep dark secrets! Every other story to come off the wire is, "Bush clamors for support...", "Bush rallies for support..." Pretty lousy propaganda machine to report on its own activities!

You look at the way the American people react and you see the results of propaganda. That's not what it is. It's patriotism and human nature. Even those of us who loathe Bush and who think he bungled badly along the way are still going to get behind our troops who're putting themselves in harm's way, and that means getting behind our executive-in-chief. He doesn't even have to ask. It's just what happens. It's human nature.

I'm sure you saw something of my massive pacifism subthread. I hate war. I HATE WAR. I hate that it's come to this. I hate the thought of civilians being killed. I even hate the thought of enemy soldiers being killed. The fact that many of them would probably as soon kill me as blink doesn't change the way I feel about their deaths. You're right... war is atrocious. Not because we're doing anything particularly wrong, as far as war goes... but because war is always atrocious. War is hell. War is messy. War is imprecise. This has managed to be relatively precise, as far as wars go, but that's not very far.

So let's say the United States gets out of the "attacking dictators who have never directly attacked or threatened us" business. Let's say we get a time machine and go back in time, and insert something in the Constitution saying we can't do anything of the sort. Flash forward again until the 1940s or so. Remember a guy named Hitler? What happens then? We don't know how long it would've taken him to get to us, because we stepped in and stopped him before he was done with Europe. If we had followed your logic back then, we would've defended ourselves from Japan and ignored Europe.

Now, back to the propaganda machine. The media is controlled by a few key people. These people are not the government. These are people who care about a mixture of ratings and the truth (precise mixture depending upon which individual we're looking at). Do you think a man who married "Hanoi Jane" is part of a propaganda machine?Do you think a foreign billionaire like Rupert Murdoch is a puppet of the U.S. government? Watch the interaction between the media and the candidates during a presidential election. Yes, the government is in a good position to yank on some of the media's strings, but the media holds just as many of the government's strings and is actually a lot better at yanking.

Dagolar wrote:

I'm sorry, folks. Trying to compare Saddam to Hitler is ludicrous. You're going to have to spell out the entire history of Adolf and make pinpoint comparisons before that even begins to form a feasible argument.

-Dagolar

Hitler: Once in power, put his image everywhere, created organizations named after himself ("Hitler Youth")
Saddam: Once in power, put his image everywhere, created organizations named after himself ("Fedayn Saddam")

Hitler: Genocide against Jews
Saddam: Genocide against Jews and Kurds

Hitler: Expansionist who repeatedly went to war to expand territory
Saddam: Expansionist who repeatedly goes to war to expand territory

Hitler: Massive military and secret police system to control the populace
Saddam: Massive military and secret police system to control the populace

Hitler: Sadistic torture and medical experimentation on Jews
Saddam: Sadistic torture and medical experimentation on anyone he doesn't like

Hitler: Concentration camps for Jews
Saddam: Concentration camps (called "victory cities") for Kurds

Etc.

Saddam would be offended by the comparison, though: He prefers to think of himself as the modern Stalin, not Hitler.

So let's say the United States gets out of the "attacking dictators who have never directly attacked or threatened us" business. Let's say we get a time machine and go back in time, and insert something in the Constitution saying we can't do anything of the sort. Flash forward again until the 1940s or so. Remember a guy named Hitler? What happens then? We don't know how long it would've taken him to get to us, because we stepped in and stopped him before he was done with Europe. If we had followed your logic back then, we would've defended ourselves from Japan and ignored Europe.

That's a bad example. In WWII, Japan and Germany were strongly allied.. If I'm not mistaken, Germany declared war on us as soon as we did on Japan.

-AbyssDragon

That has more to do with security than with propaganda. It's for information from the front line reporters, the "embedded" reporters and other reporters abroad.. the government doesn't say, "Don't say we're worried. We're not worried." The government says, "That shot has road signs in it that could give away troop locations," or, "These numbers could be useful to the enemy."

True. But as others have pointed out, even with an attack on U.S. soil, a declaration of war, and clear-cut alliances, there was still protest and doubt. In other words, this situation may not be quite as cut and dried... but even when things are cut and dried, they aren't cut and dried.

I don't like the idea of people like Saddam being in power. I'm just not comfortable with it.

I also don't like the idea of one country unilaterally acting as the world's police force and deciding what's best for other countries. I'm just not comfortable with it.

For better or worse, we're here, at this point. I really don't like the road we took to get here, but having entered into this thing, any resolution other than the end of Saddam's reign is going to be the worst possible atrocity. Invading Iraq, bombing Baghdad... these are not in themselves good things by any stretch of the imagination. People have died on all (and I repeat, that's "all", not both) sides of the conflict. People can call these deaths pointless or senseless, but that's only true if we back out now.

Small, simple question. What COULD I say that you might actually accept?

I was perfectly willing to accept your declaration that you were done talking. Aside from that, I'm willing to accept:

*Anything you can back up with facts. Note that "I seem to recall a new story..." and "Something like 80% of the world..." are not facts. I haven't offered many facts in this discussion, merely opinions and observations... but I have never tried to disguise my observations as facts. Near the end, you turn things around and say, "I merely offer my opinions!" Pure bullspit. You were pushing your viewpoint as the pure objective truth from the beginning.

*Any blow by blow, point by point refutation of something that someone has actually said. "I'm sorry, you can't say that." is not a refutation.

*Anything you say that's not a baldly blatant attempt to take something that actually happened in the course of the discussion and turn it around 180 degrees... for instance, the post I'm replying to. You, who tells people what they may and may not compare Saddam to, you, who thinks it's okay to offer the microcosm that is the Middle East as an example but tell other people they're being too narrow when they do, have the gall to ask me what I'll accept from you? You're the one who tries to set terms of engagement here.

Dagolar wrote:

So it's opinion versus opinion. Okay. I'm done. Good talking with you...

-Dagolar

Except when it's facts versus opinion. It's good debating form not to ignore the facts that have been presented to you, especially when you requested them.

so...why do you care?

Werent you the one a few days ago comparing America to Hitler? Mixed argument maybe???


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>