NationStates Jolt Archive

Well there you have it. If you don't like the way things are going with the "war on terror" or the fighting in Iraq then you might as well be appeasing terrorists. It is not as if we could be fighting those extremists better, no that's not it, disagree with Bush's strategy then you are like a Nazi appeaser.

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap08-29-091723.asp?t=apnew&vts=82920061507

And such an utter and complete idiot is in control of the strongest military in the world? :eek:
I shudder...

Can someone please godwin that idiot?

Can someone please godwin that idiot?

It could be argued that the whole thing was already Godwined when Bush was compared to Hitler. Not that it matters.

Why does Rumsfield still have a job?

Why does Rumsfield still have a job?

Because the public has a 5-minute attention span and no real political power.

Can someone please godwin that idiot?

Unless he said it on the internet it doesn't count.

Why does Rumsfield still have a job?

They need someone else in that administration to draw attention away from Bush.

Because the public has a 5-minute attention span and no real political power.

True. Still, it really is unbelieveable that Rumsfeld can make comments like this and receives what seems to be a shrug from the media. They don't seem to view this as dangerous and neither do many Americans. Scary.

How very mature of him.

Unless he said it on the internet it doesn't count.
Damn! And I had hoped it would apply to any argumentation.

True. Still, it really is unbelieveable that Rumsfeld can make comments like this and receives what seems to be a shrug from the media. They don't seem to view this as dangerous and neither do many Americans. Scary.

But that is what makes the public the public... no focus on true matters... instead, we see the whole Gibson thing and wonder if he is being sent to "The Henry Ford Center for Anti-semitism"... at least that is how it is on Comedy Central. :p

How very mature of him.
Senile would be the right word?

I wrote a letter to that fucker about a year ago telling him to resign (it was deeper than that of course) and I still havn't even received so much as a stock response from the department of defense.

Can someone please godwin that idiot?

Maybe Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson ... :p

I wrote a letter to that fucker about a year ago telling him to resign (it was deeper than that of course) and I still havn't even received so much as a stock response from the department of defense.
Send him the same letter each and every day (postage will be a bitch, though). Maybe he'll get the message?

Überspam his real postbox - and be prepared for a visit by some men in black :D

How stupid is that comparison? Let me count the ways....

I wrote a letter to that fucker about a year ago telling him to resign (it was deeper than that of course) and I still havn't even received so much as a stock response from the department of defense.

He'll probably just send the IRS on your ass. What better way to get revenge on someone? :p

True. Still, it really is unbelieveable that Rumsfeld can make comments like this and receives what seems to be a shrug from the media. They don't seem to view this as dangerous and neither do many Americans. Scary.

Because "with us or against us" has been the administration's political stance for uh, 5 years now.

Send him the same letter each and every day (postage will be a bitch, though). Maybe he'll get the message?

Überspam his real postbox - and be prepared for a visit by some men in black :D

Piff, I got my AK and 4 mags.

I've been laughing solidly these last ten minutes, thanks to the linked article.

Anyone else notice that the Bush Admin have changed tack as of late, and have started using the words 'fascism' and 'Nazism' at every possible opportunity when refering to Islam and it's people?

Guess they're taking a leaf out of Goebbels book on propaganda - specifically the one about repeating a lie enough times that it becomes accepted fact.

Does this count as irony?

Meath Street: Rumsfeld is like a Nazi

:D

Meath Street: Rumsfeld is like a Nazi

:DDamn... I wanted to do that... :(

I wrote a letter to that fucker about a year ago telling him to resign (it was deeper than that of course) and I still havn't even received so much as a stock response from the department of defense.

Hey, don't worry, I wrote to my MP 9 months ago asking that he voted against a Bill and never heard anything.

I could understand a member of an unelected cabinet replying, but the MP elected to represent me....annoying, to say the least.

Rumsfeld is too dishonorable to do the right thing and 'redecorate' his pentagon office and even too much of a weasel to resign.

We need to pass laws that penalize criminal incompetence the same way the british used to discipline their ship captains.

So if one doesn’t consider appeasing the Nazis to be a bad thing, should one feign offense?

Anyone else notice that the Bush Admin have changed tack as of late, and have started using the words 'fascism' and 'Nazism' at every possible opportunity when refering to Islam and it's people?

Guess they're taking a leaf out of Goebbels book on propaganda - specifically the one about repeating a lie enough times that it becomes accepted fact.

Does this count as irony?

I'd think it would count as the usual...they've simply upped the rhetoric. As they get backed into tighter and tighter corners they do what they've always done, which is to slander their opposition and shoot the inconvenient messengers. The offense is the only way to go when the specifics of your policies are indefensible.

So if one doesn’t consider appeasing the Nazis to be a bad thing, should one feign offense?
I know that you're sometimes strange, but, please, don't sink to rummydummys level. Please. It's not a beautiful sight.

Anyone else notice that the Bush Admin have changed tack as of late, and have started using the words 'fascism' and 'Nazism' at every possible opportunity when refering to Islam and it's people?

Of course. You're either anti-Muslim, or you're pro-Nazi.

Guess they're taking a leaf out of Goebbels book on propaganda - specifically the one about repeating a lie enough times that it becomes accepted fact.

Oh, that tactic has been in use for longer than just this particular example.

What a tool Rumsfeld is. I suppose we really shouldn't be surprised by now though.

Well he obviously know what he is saying is a load of garbage, so the only conclusion one could come too is that he is trying to polarise opinion, I mean the 'with us or against us' stance can only lead to further divisions.

SOmeone might want to explain to Rummy that some people feel that the best way to fight terrorism is to fight terrorists. :p

Anyone else notice that the Bush Admin have changed tack as of late, and have started using the words 'fascism' and 'Nazism' at every possible opportunity when refering to Islam and it's people?

Guess they're taking a leaf out of Goebbels book on propaganda - specifically the one about repeating a lie enough times that it becomes accepted fact.

Does this count as irony?

Isn't that why he repeatedly kept saying Iraq had WMD's and hinted that Saddam had some kind of connection to 9/11? That really wasn't neccessary though as I firmly believe the American public in this new 21st century is much stupider then the German people in the 1930's and 40's.

You know Rumsfeld would never be able to get away with saying something like that unless at least a sold minority of people can accept what he was saying as truth.

Well, If Rummy is right, and disagreeing with Bush's policies make me a nazi...

Then I say, "Das Uber Alles!"

Ein Leibe der Juden!

I've just had a peek at the article, and Rumsfeld has a cheek comparing anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war sentiment to public opinion around the time of the policy of appeasement in the 1930's.

In those days, people didn't want a repeat of the First World War, so Hitler's expansionist aims where he remilitarized the Rhineland and made other demands where met with little resistance from Britain etc. since the ill-informed people simply thought Hitler was reclaiming pieces of territory lost after the war. WW2 could have been stopped if we stopped Hitler before he got the Rhineland back.

Nowadays, we are more worried about terrorist organisations attacking us rather than other nations. In "response" to this, the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq. Now they have eyes on Iran.

However, in this way we are not fighting terrorists. Terrorist organisations are stateless entities that won't go away if you simply attack a country. (In this case, Al Qaida was not present in pre-war Iraq and the invasion hasn't put any serious stress on the organisation. If anything, it's been strengthened.)

This "War on Terror" is ineffectual because ultimately it doesn't fight terrorists. It won't stop terror from happening, like if we had invaded the Rhineland back in the 1930's. It just creates a weak justification for invading whatever middle eastern country we like. That's why Rumsfeld is talking a load of BS.

Can someone please godwin that idiot?

By order of the High King Lord Elvis the First and Great, I hereby assert Mr. Donald Rumsfeld in violation of Godwin's Law, and that his commentary on the issue shall be indeed be condemned to the darkest depths of the forgotten realms.

SOmeone might want to explain to Rummy that some people feel that the best way to fight terrorism is to fight terrorists. :p




:D :D


yup .

What a joke, funnily enough if anything ought to be referred to as appeasment, it's signing up with the Coalition of the Appeasers...:rolleyes:

Somebody should point out to him that the nazis were creationists.

http://www.mathematik.uni-marburg.de/~niederl/kz/gott_mit_uns.jpg

SOmeone might want to explain to Rummy that some people feel that the best way to fight terrorism is to fight terrorists. :p

I thought invading countries was the way to do that? :eek:

And I quote from the article : Without explicitly citing Bush critics at home or abroad, he said ''it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons."

Yeah... that's right, Rumsfled.

Look at the military history of Afghanistan. It will be an enlightening experience.

To be fair, he only actually says the critics of Dubya's policies are like Nazi appeasers once. The rest is mostly him just saying that terrorists need to be confronted rather than appeased, which is perfectly sensible.

Nothing like a bit of re-branding 'eh?

I wonder what the corporate logo is going to be....

To be fair, he only actually says the critics of Dubya's policies are like Nazi appeasers once. The rest is mostly him just saying that terrorists need to be confronted rather than appeased, which is perfectly sensible.

Once is more than enough. Likening the terrorists to facism is just ridiculous. Then saying anyone who doesn't like how the war is being fought is an appeaser? The guy is at least as dangerous as any terrorist.

And I quote from the article : Without explicitly citing Bush critics at home or abroad, he said ''it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons."

Yeah... that's right, Rumsfled.

Look at the military history of Afghanistan. It will be an enlightening experience.
I liked Keith Olbermann's response to it. Here's a part of it--lengthy, but apropos, especially the way he makes the Bush administration into Chamberlain. In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld's speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril--with a growing evil--powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld's, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the "secret information." It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld's -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England's, in the 1930's.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions -- its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all -- it "knew" that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic's name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History -- and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England -- have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty -- and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today's Omniscient ones.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience -- about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago -- we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

I liked Keith Olbermann's response to it. Here's a part of it--lengthy, but apropos, especially the way he makes the Bush administration into Chamberlain.
<snip>
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience -- about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago -- we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

A beautiful sentiment.

The rationale behind all this tossing about of the F-word (Fascist) is easy to see -- it's an attempt to take the rhetoric away from the Dems and the left before the elections start in ernest. They've failed again, of course, because used an adjective -- Islamic fascists. That leaves us free to point that there is more than one kind of fascist in the world.

As for Rummy -- he's just an idiot who blathers out in public some garbled form of whatever Cheney says in private. This is a blunder that the rightwing election spinners will quickly try to sweep under the rug because they alreay had Bush out there trying to act like he doesn't think all his critics should be shot in order to try to win back the badly eroded voting majority.