COMMENTARY: The Racism of the Anti War Movement

[Clandestino]

LAST UPDATE: 8/27/2005 5:47:25 PM
Posted By: Jim Forsyth
This story is available on your cell phone at mobile.woai.com.

By Jim Forsyth, News Radio 1200 WOAI

Like most Texas reporters, I have made the pilgrimage to interview Cindy Sheehan and her anti war comrades parked in front of Crawford. One of the made-for-television signs held up behind Cindy during the news event I attended was particularly disturbing. "Iraq," read the sign held aloft by two prosperous looking white women,"is Arabic for Vietnam."

By holding this sign, I presume they would favor that the Iraq war end the same way the war in Vietnam ended. I also presume that this means they would not oppose the same fate for the people of Iraq that befell the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after the end of US involvement there, which was one of the more horrible in the sorry annals of twentieth century tyranny. But in 1975, we were told by the anti war crowd that, after all, they were only Asians, they probably couldn't understand democracy anyway, and knew it wouldn't work 'for them.' Its sad to see the same attitude repeated today, that its not worth the blood of white Americans like Casey Sheehan to win freedom and democracy for 'those people,' in this case, brown skinned Arab Muslims.

Even if you drink every last drop of the anti war Kool Aid, even if you are convinced that President Bush was ordered by the Chairman of Halliburton to start the Iraq war and that he intentionally lied to the American people about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the simple fact is that today, there is demonstrably more freedom for the people of Iraq and for the people of Afghanistan, some 50 million brown skinned Muslims. Yes, there is dawdling over the drafting of an Iraqi constitution, but before April of 2003, metal shredders and rape rooms awaited any Iraqi who breathed the word 'constitution.' Yes, a brutal insurgency continues to threaten the Iraqi people, an insurgency which has killed some 25,000 Iraqi civilians since April of 2003. But Saddam Hussein, even by conservative estimates, butchered 1.5 million Iraqis during his 25 years in power (not counting the one million who died in the war he started with Iran). So Saddam and his goons killed an average of 60,000 people a year, while the insurgency has killed 25,000 in two and a half years. Despite the hand-wringing over the insurgency, the devil's arithmetic would indicate that life for the average Iraq is actually safer today than it was under Saddam. But they're brown skimmed Muslims, so not worthy of America's notice, let alone America's sacrifice.

President Bush is actually the greatest liberator of Muslims in history, considering that there weren't 50 million people in the entire MIddle East when Saladin beat back the Crusader hordes. But to the anti war activists, providing freedom from slavery, democratic and economic opportunity to brown skinned people isn't worth the sacrifice of white Americans. Good thing they weren't around when Lincoln was drafting the Emancipation Proclamation.

I recently watched the magnificent Don Cheadle film "Hotel Rwanda" with a group of friends, certified Bush Bashing Democrats all. After it was over, the general murmur in the room was 'why didn't America do something!' to stop the carnage in Rwanda. If Cindy Sheehan were to get her way, and President Bush would be 'impeached and tried for war crimes' over his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as she has demanded, the real losers will be the future citizens of Rwanda, and the other places where brutal dictators will have free reign to massacre people in large numbers, knowing that American leaders will pay too high a political price for them to get involved and 'do something.' And I don't think many of those places will be populated by white Europeans

[whottt]

Countdown to pat liberal propaganda response #1348(the one asking why we haven't liberated a poor country like Darfur, ignoring both Afghanistan and Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement):

5
4
3
2
1...


And yes I have noticed their racism and have called several of them out for it....don't forget their trending towards anti-semitism either.

[whottt]

Oh and you'll never hear a Vietnam Anti-War activist own up to what happened to the Vietnamese after the US pulled out, in particular John Kerry...I often hope they'll some day run into a Vietnamese refugee that was forced out after we pulled out and they'll tell them how they were on their side and protesting the war...I often hope this because I'd enjoy watching the Vietnamese, who probably had several members of their family slaughtered as their property was stolen from them, spit in their face after hearing that. I'd get a kick out of the stunned look on their face.

[exstatic]

By holding this sign, I presume they would favor that the Iraq war end the same way the war in Vietnam ended. I also presume that this means they would not oppose the same fate for the people of Iraq that befell the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after the end of US involvement there, which was one of the more horrible in the sorry annals of twentieth century tyranny. But in 1975, we were told by the anti war crowd that, after all, they were only Asians, they probably couldn't understand democracy anyway, and knew it wouldn't work 'for them.' Its sad to see the same attitude repeated today, that its not worth the blood of white Americans like Casey Sheehan to win freedom and democracy for 'those people,' in this case, brown skinned Arab Muslims.

The flaw in both conflicts was thinking that you could "give" someone democracy at all. It has to be earned, and you have to do it yourself. As an aside, it's funny to see the NeoCons now comparing this Iraq mess to SE Asia. Two years ago, there was no comparison and they were nothing alike, dammit! It's also sad to see the Iraqi forces turning out to be every bit as wussified and needing their hands held as the ARVN was. Will the joke of the new millenia be "Hey, need a rifle? Here's an Iraqi forces model, never fired, and only dropped once..."?

[Jelly]

I don't know about them being racist, but I believe that those who share Cindy Sheehan's position (demanding a total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq) are showing a staggering and callous lack of concern and compassion for the Iraqi people.

Come to think of it, considering they have David Duke in their corner, I wonder how many of them are, in fact, coming from a racist viewpoint...

[Nbadan]

President Bush is actually the greatest liberator of Muslims in history, considering that there weren't 50 million people in the entire MIddle East when Saladin beat back the Crusader hordes. But to the anti war activists, providing freedom from slavery, democratic and economic opportunity to brown skinned people isn't worth the sacrifice of white Americans. Good thing they weren't around when Lincoln was drafting the Emancipation Proclamation.

What a joke! lol

So now the liberation of Iraq is like Lincoln emancipating the slaves just cause the locals happen to be 'dark-skinned'? Only a Republican would have the gull to try that argument. Next they'll to be talking about their 'dark-skinned' Iraqi friends.

[Nbadan]

I recently watched the magnificent Don Cheadle film "Hotel Rwanda" with a group of friends, certified Bush Bashing Democrats all. After it was over, the general murmur in the room was 'why didn't America do something!' to stop the carnage in Rwanda. If Cindy Sheehan were to get her way, and President Bush would be 'impeached and tried for war crimes' over his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as she has demanded, the real losers will be the future citizens of Rwanda, and the other places where brutal dictators will have free reign to massacre people in large numbers, knowing that American leaders will pay too high a political price for them to get involved and 'do something.' And I don't think many of those places will be populated by white Europeans

How can anyone write this while the US does nothing for Sudan? Clinton should have done something in Rwanda, but to compare the situations in Rwanda and Iraq is a real stretch considering that Iraq was a modern secular triving nation before we embargoed it for 13 years and then invaded in 03. We created the crisis in Iraq.

[Nbadan]

By holding this sign, I presume they would favor that the Iraq war end the same way the war in Vietnam ended. I also presume that this means they would not oppose the same fate for the people of Iraq that befell the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after the end of US involvement there, which was one of the more horrible in the sorry annals of twentieth century tyranny. But in 1975, we were told by the anti war crowd that, after all, they were only Asians, they probably couldn't understand democracy anyway, and knew it wouldn't work 'for them.' Its sad to see the same attitude repeated today, that its not worth the blood of white Americans like Casey Sheehan to win freedom and democracy for 'those people,' in this case, brown skinned Arab Muslims.

I can't believe that Jim Forsyth from WOAI 1200AM wrote this diatribe. Yes, Cindy Sheehan and David Duke have combined forces to bring home our white children because they don't want them dieing for them ‘dark-skinned’ people. See how ridiculous that sounds? Someone should remind Forsyth hat many of the troops Sheehan is fighting to bring home, who are dying for his right to write garbage like this, are ‘dark-skinned’ minorities.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Iraq was a modern secular triving nation before we embargoed it for 13 years and then invaded in 03. We created the crisis in Iraq.

What? Secular in that the Sunnis were fucking over the Kurds and Shiites left and right.

Thriving in that Saddam had 26 palaces while his people lived in poverty.

ANd the embargo would never have happened if Saddam hadn't gone into Kuwait. He created the problem for his own people.

Thriving? US caused all the problems? That's laughable at worst, unequivocable proof of you being a dumbass at best.

[Nbadan]

The flaw in both conflicts was thinking that you could "give" someone democracy at all. It has to be earned, and you have to do it yourself

Actually, spreading democracy is a very liberal concept and had the W administration approached the rebuilding of Iraq correctly, and prepared for the insurgency as many Generals recommended (before they summarily replaced with Yes-men by Rummy), and we didn't torture people in Iraq, who knows how this could have turned out?

We lost control of the war when all those thousands of prisoners in Abu-Gharib and other prisons In Iraq went home and told everyone what happened to them.

[Nbadan]

What? Secular in that the Sunnis were fucking over the Kurds and Shiites left and right.

Secular as in not based on Islamic law like we have under the proposed constitution.

The Kurds have been liberated for quite some time. Yeah, we really cared for the Kurds while Saddam was 'allegedly' gassing them. I think Reagan did, ummm, nothing.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You don't think Saddam ruled with Islamic law? The dude wanted to be the new world caliph. Gimme a break.


I think Reagan did, ummm, nothing.

Yeah, Clitton was sure pro-active. If you're gonna call out a president, you've got a couple to mention.

[Nbadan]

Thriving in that Saddam had 26 palaces while his people lived in poverty.

Thriving as in hungar in Iraq was almost non-existant before the 13 years of embargo. Compare that to the thousands of malnutritioned elderly, women and children in Iraq today. The most vulnerable are always those who suffer the most in any war. Many go without running water and electricity for more than 12 hours daily.

[Nbadan]

You don't think Saddam ruled with Islamic law? The dude wanted to be the new world caliph. Gimme a break.

Ummm..his Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz is a Catholic. In fact, Catholics lived peacefully along-side Muslims in Iraq for many years. Yes, it is possible.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, Clitton was sure pro-active. If you're gonna call out a president, you've got a couple to mention.

I believe I did call out Clinton. Even Clinton has called out Clinton calling not acting on Rwanda one of the biggest mistakes of his administration.

[whottt]

Aggie...I hate to tell you this...but like every dictator and murderous regime of the past century...

Saddam was a left winger, a Socialist...not an Islamist. He was about as much of a Muslim as Castro is a Catholic.

The Ba'ath Party and the RCC are both Socialist movements.


And Saddam killed fucking everyone...including other members of the Ba'th party, Sunni's and Shia's...

He didn't embrace Islam until late in his career....and he only embraced it then because he saw the positive aspects of terrorism.

But Dan...get off the fucking crack you insane bitch...saying he was secular is like saying Stalin was secular, that doesn't excuse him from being a mass murderer. You're insane man.

[Nbadan]

But Dan...get off the fucking crack you insane bitch...saying he was secular is like saying Stalin was secular, that doesn't excuse him from being a mass murderer. You're insane man.

Where did I write that this in any way excused Saddam? All I was saying is that Iraq was a secular state before we broke it.

[exstatic]

I don't know about them being racist, but I believe that those who share Cindy Sheehan's position (demanding a total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq) are showing a staggering and callous lack of concern and compassion for the Iraqi people.

I think the racism is from those who think that this is another case of white man's burden, and that these nations can't possibly be competent to decide and implement their own futures without our "help".

[Jelly]

I think the racism is from those who think that this is another case of white man's burden, and that these nations can't possibly be competent to decide and implement their own futures without our "help".

Those of us who who feel we should stay until things improve, do not feel that way because we think Iraqis are incompetent (though there is a problem with incompetency and corruption in Iraq). We feel that way because America has created this sitation in Iraq and we know that an immediate withdrawal would lead to the slaughter of millions. That is a fact. Even Iraqis who are tired of the occupation and feel the U.S. has screwed up a lot do not want us to cut and run. The current conditions are unmanageable for the Iraqi forces. As Colin Powell said "if you break it, you own it".

BTW NBADan, with all the photos you post, couldn't you find one of Cindy Sheehan at the Lynn Stewart rally?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Funny how nobody claims media bias here.

No comments about the mainstream media being biased, no comments about overstepping their bounds as reporters.

If Bob Guthrie or Rosalinda Montero wrote this same piece one way or the other, they'd be blasted and forced to turn off their mics.

[Clandestino]

we went in to kosovo and bosnia to stop genocide... they have no oil or resources, but nobody really bitched about that... well, the UN, Russia and China did, but the rest of the world didn't

[boutons]

"we went in to kosovo and bosnia to stop genocide... they have no oil or resources, but nobody really bitched about that"

shrub's position in the 2000 election "I don't do nation-building" was obviously distancing himself from the US intervention in the Balkans and Mogadishu (ie, playing to the red-state/Repug true believers), and positioning himself/Repugs as isolantionist rather than interventionist (well, isolationist until oil corp profits suffer). (and distancing himself/Repugs from anything Clinton/Dem, which included ignoring the out-going Dems serious, urgent warnings about bin Laden.)

Why isn't Jim Forsyth standing on his racist soapbox and fomenting for US intervention in Darfur and Zimbabwe, which are the Rwandas of today? No oil.

shrug/Repug (who are owned by the oilco's and defense contractors) are intervening in Muslim-on-Muslim affairs because the USA is dependent upon oil from that region. Oil is the mitigating factor that prioritizes Iraq above all the other shit going on in the world.

[Clandestino]

so, that is why you are mad? bush said he wouldn't nation build and now he is in iraq and afghanistan? :lmao 9/11 happened and changed the world. HE WAS FORCED to go into Afghanistan and re-build their nation.

He then decided we'd be safer off with Iraq in check and the majority of the United States agreed with him. We will re-build their nation as well.

i believe you probaby have offered up the weakest reply ever. "bc he said he wouldn't!" Would you have applauded if bush said, "i will not go into afghanistan and maim the taliban bc i said i wouldn't nation build. i know 3000 people died because of them and osama, but i just can't. my hands are tied."

[boutons]

"that is why you are mad"

no. try something else.

"HE WAS FORCED to go into Afghanistan and re-build their nation."

No, he wasn't. Iraq is a bogus war of choice, not necessity. Iraq was effectively "in check" as our super-easy invasion and "end of major combat operations" showed, as did our findings that Saddam was militarily castrated, had been since Gulf War.

With the Kurds controlling the north and the US/allies overflying damn near everywhere and stationed just across the border, how was Saddam "unchecked"? More complete BS from the right.

Outside of your befoggged and befuddled cranium, Afghanistan was not an invasion of choice nor nation-building, but an attack directly on the terrorists in a country ruled by an govt harboring and aiding the terrorists who hit WTC. I support/ed the invasion of Afghanistan completely.

[exstatic]

Those of us who who feel we should stay until things improve, do not feel that way because we think Iraqis are incompetent (though there is a problem with incompetency and corruption in Iraq). We feel that way because America has created this sitation in Iraq and we know that an immediate withdrawal would lead to the slaughter of millions. That is a fact. Even Iraqis who are tired of the occupation and feel the U.S. has screwed up a lot do not want us to cut and run. The current conditions are unmanageable for the Iraqi forces. As Colin Powell said "if you break it, you own it".


Yes, but wasn't freeing the Iraqi people and giving them democracy the rationale (at least the latest) of the Bush administration's entry into Iraq in the first place? That's what I'm talking about.

1) Why do we get involved with such reasons as the motivator?
2) If it's a bad idea to go in, it's a worse idea to stay. That's compounding one mistake into two.

The west has been stepping on their dicks in the Middle East since the aftermath of World War ONE. How else can you explain deliniating Iraq into one country? Or the splitting of the Pashtuns between Afghanistan and Pakistan? This has been a patchwork of tribal cultures for thousands of years. To pretend that we can just jump into the middle of that without resentment and backlash is ignorance personified.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Aggie...I hate to tell you this...but like every dictator and murderous regime of the past century...

Saddam was a left winger, a Socialist...not an Islamist. He was about as much of a Muslim as Castro is a Catholic.


Saddam made many speaches and interviews where he referred to himself as being the one to unite the Arabian province and re-establish a modern Mideastern caliphate.

[boutons]

"re-establish a modern Mideastern caliphate."

but nobody believed it would be a ISLAMIC THEOCRATIC caliphate, as long as he was the "khaliffa".

[exstatic]

Saddam has also aspired to be the next Nebbuchanezzar, and rule the new Babylon. Does that make him an idol worshipper or animist? He fancied himself as the re-incarnation of strong rulers. It had NOTHING to do with religion.

[The Big Chicken]

Aggie...I hate to tell you this...but like every dictator and murderous regime of the past century...

Saddam was a left winger, a Socialist...not an Islamist. He was about as much of a Muslim as Castro is a Catholic.


Can you spell Pinoche?

[Jelly]

Can you spell Pinoche?

:lol :lol :lol
can you or was that a joke?

[The Big Chicken]

A little bit of both.

[cecil collins]

I think the racism is from those who think that this is another case of white man's burden, and that these nations can't possibly be competent to decide and implement their own futures without our "help".


That is the egotism of some Americans. They think they have to "save everyone", but I don't think that is the administrations intent, just a nice little justification.

BTW, I don't like Kosovo, it was a propaganda war. Congratulations folks, you cant stop getting duped.

[mookie2001]

yeah i bet a lot of Tahoe driving W stickered neocons cared so much about the people of Iraq before Bush decided he was going to
disarm Saddam
err
liberate Iraq
err
set up a foothold of democracy in the middle east
err
fight terrorism

[gtownspur]

yeah i bet a lot of Tahoe driving W stickered neocons cared so much about the people of Iraq before Bush decided he was going to
disarm Saddam
err
liberate Iraq
err
set up a foothold of democracy in the middle east
err
fight terrorism


Idiocy.... is all i can grasp from this comment. The sad thing is is that by stating what you posted you also have admitted to the fact that liberals wouldnt care about liberating Oppressed peoples even if there was sufficient reason like oppression and WmD's. In fact your way worse than the neocons you deride. You would let iraqi women get raped just so you could appease a savage dictator. And for what? ,So that he can break your fucking treaties and rebuild his war machine till we then have to face a much dire crisis? Do you care more about feeling good about your false security than actual results? Should we as american's take fools like you seriously.

You admitted to the fact by your anti intervention belief that you wouldnt do jack shit for our freedom or others. Let me ask you something? Did FDR intervene in WW11 to the plight of the jews??. Didnt FDR, and Harry Truman appease Stalin and call him in dearest terms "Uncle Joe". Stalin who's death toll of his citizens was 4x's that of Nazi Germany and who tried to make a pact with Hitler while we were figthing on the beaches of Normandy. The whole history of the Democrat party has always been on the side of Mass Murderers and Despots. FDR sent administration officials to italy to observe Mussolini's "admirable" govt so that we can emulate it. Jimmy Carter betrayed the "Shah" of Iran and let Iran become a despot and radical state which then cost us the lost our only arab ally in the ME, and then we were forced to help out Hussein stop ANti american Iran from seizing all the oil and threatening Sunni Suadi arabia. Till Reagan the Soviets amassed huge land mass for communism tricking FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, And Carter. it took Republican administrations to undue what the asses of the democrats made. Appeasement's greatest hero is Neville Chamberlian and Jimmy Carter. ANd thats nothing.

We as americans do not need "useful idiots"(-the erm the soviets used to describe the left and the Media for apologizing for soviet atrocities.) for our islamo facist enemies. We need real policy's to deal with evil in our world. and if you dont believe in evil in our existence, you are lost.

It seems Socialist, and American Liberals have no fundemantal principles or morals. Anything is righteuos so much as it serves to further the socialist cause. Even the destruction and ahnillation of the US would be rightheuous to them so long as it socialist prinicples prevail. People who further UN courts over the Constitution have no place in america!

[mookie2001]

neocon taking the moral high ground?

how...transparently pompous of you


also comparing this bullshit to WWII and calling liberals socialists

most original post of the year

[xrayzebra]

The flaw in both conflicts was thinking that you could "give" someone democracy at all. It has to be earned, and you have to do it yourself. As an aside, it's funny to see the NeoCons now comparing this Iraq mess to SE Asia. Two years ago, there was no comparison and they were nothing alike, dammit! It's also sad to see the Iraqi forces turning out to be every bit as wussified and needing their hands held as the ARVN was. Will the joke of the new millenia be "Hey, need a rifle? Here's an Iraqi forces model, never fired, and only dropped once..."?

Okay, my friend, how bout Japan, Germany, South Korea? They earned
their democracy? As usual, you folks are wrong as two left feet. Bush is
still President and will be for a few more years. Learn it, live with it...you
lost we won......and are winning.....

[xrayzebra]

Actually, spreading democracy is a very liberal concept and had the W administration approached the rebuilding of Iraq correctly, and prepared for the insurgency as many Generals recommended (before they summarily replaced with Yes-men by Rummy), and we didn't torture people in Iraq, who knows how this could have turned out?

We lost control of the war when all those thousands of prisoners in Abu-Gharib and other prisons In Iraq went home and told everyone what happened to them.

What drivel you put out. Things are 110% better there now than in
before we went to war. Abu-Gharib was a killing factory before us.
You are so wrong, as usual.....Bush is President now and will be for a
few more years....live with it.....you lost we won.....

[mookie2001]

yeah anyone who doesnt love bush and agree with everything he does is just a sore loser
get over it
bush won
he got the "greatest" mandate of all time
get over it
bush won
the election

[xrayzebra]

Aggie...I hate to tell you this...but like every dictator and murderous regime of the past century...

Saddam was a left winger, a Socialist...not an Islamist. He was about as much of a Muslim as Castro is a Catholic.

The Ba'ath Party and the RCC are both Socialist movements.


And Saddam killed fucking everyone...including other members of the Ba'th party, Sunni's and Shia's...

He didn't embrace Islam until late in his career....and he only embraced it then because he saw the positive aspects of terrorism.

But Dan...get off the fucking crack you insane bitch...saying he was secular is like saying Stalin was secular, that doesn't excuse him from being a mass murderer. You're insane man.


Well Whott, you actually do know what was going on in Iraq. I wished some of these other "blog" readers would learn a little history. But you have a long row to hoe, they have only one thing in mind: Hate Bush. But still
they got to remember, he is President and will be for a few more years, for the second time......they are the losers and we are the winners.....

[mookie2001]

GET OVER IT
Bush won

dam sore losers
get over it
man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he won
the election
live with it
stop whining

[xrayzebra]

wasn't germany already a democracy?

Hellllllloooooooo, ever heard of Hitler? Like he was elected? Oh, never mind,
you must be product of todays education system.

[mookie2001]

he was elected


get over it
Sore Loserman 2000

[The Big Chicken]

he was elected


get over it
Sore Loserman 2000
OWNED xrayzebra. He won the last elections with more than 90% of the votes. I think he even got 99%.

[xrayzebra]

he was elected


get over it
Sore Loserman 2000

He was elected? Hitler? Better go back and read your history again, he
was appointed. Suggest you look at this site: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/

Winner I am, I am. I support my country and my President. You can
support your side: Clinton the cigar smoker(?), and Kennedy, the swimmer or Bird, the KKK man.

[mookie2001]

nice google, took you a while
while it is up for debate
he did run and win elections


you support Leader W. Bush the greatest leader of all time and the strength, conviction and morals he stands for
heard it before

[xrayzebra]

nice google, took you a while
while it is up for debate
he did run and win elections


you support Leader W. Bush the greatest leader of all time and the strength, conviction and morals he stands for
heard it before

Yeah, I don't live on here like some. Google I did. Just wanted
all to know a little bit of history, real history not just what is being
taught in schools now days. It is a little hard to put books on the
computer so google is helpful on occasion, but reading is better. (hate to say it, but I was alive in those days too and living history sometimes distorts one's view) Oh-well,
like I said; before, a winner I am, I am. We won, are winning and will
continue to win. And for the poster who wanted to know who we is:
Americans are who we is and we are winning. Those that want to put our country down are losing and always will be losers. And one thing most forget. We are a Republican type government. We only elect our
representatives thru a democratic process, the representatives vote for
you and me. Only California that I can think of off hand use the vote
for many issues, which is a mess if you look at it.

[mookie2001]

you just made a crack about elpimpo being a product of todays educational system
i thought that was funny because then he dropped knowledge on you
personally knowing elpimpo...
i would bet my life that he has a "better" education than you
take that how you want







We are a Republican type government.
and with that im going to logoff

[The Big Chicken]

He was elected? Hitler? Better go back and read your history again, he
was appointed. Suggest you look at this site: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/

Winner I am, I am. I support my country and my President. You can
support your side: Clinton the cigar smoker(?), and Kennedy, the swimmer or Bird, the KKK man.

Suggest you learn to read or read some more on the political system in Germany before WW2. He won the elections, but Hindenburg still had to, as the president of Germany, named him as Chancellor, prime minister or the one who selects the goverment. It was Mussolini who came to power without the elections, Hitler got elected or better said, his party got the majority.

[Clandestino]

saddam would garner 100% too.. anyone who voted against him was killed... don't you just love democracy!

[xrayzebra]

Suggest you learn to read or read some more on the political system in Germany before WW2. He won the elections, but Hindenburg still had to, as the president of Germany, named him as Chancellor, prime minister or the one who selects the goverment. It was Mussolini who came to power without the elections, Hitler got elected or better said, his party got the majority.

The theme of the thread is not about Hitler, but to humor you:

Hitler's Rise to Power
Once released from prison, Hitler decided to seize power constitutionally rather than by force of arms. Using demagogic oratory, Hitler spoke to scores of mass audiences, calling for the German people to resist the yoke of Jews and Communists, and to create a new empire which would rule the world for 1,000 years.
Hitler's Nazi party captured 18% of the popular vote in the 1930 elections. In 1932, Hitler ran for President and won 30% of the vote, forcing the eventual victor, Paul von Hindenburg, into a runoff election. A political deal was made to make Hitler chancellor in exchange for his political support. He was appointed to that office in January 1933.

Now back to original posting. Just always remember. Bush is President
and will be for a few more years. Bye the way, this is a google again, so
don't say anything bout it. Like I said, it is hard to be unbiased when you were
part of the history. How bout those wonderful elections they had in those
days? We are winners, we were always winners and always will be winners,
in spite of alot of losers who cry about how bad a country we have. I love Texas and these United States.....hot weather and all. It would be really great without most of the dimm-o-craps...... :lol

[whottt]

The anti-war movement is anti-gay too, as well as racist....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

The anti-war movement is anti-gay too, as well as racist....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/

Cause you know, it's all them anti-war people clamoring for the outlaw of gay marriages.

[whottt]

Pssst...JohnnyBlaze...

The far left and the far right are defined virtually the same things....racial segregation, hatred of homosexuality, religious extremism and anti-semitism....

The difference is that those guys in that link were clearly the far right, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of the right does suport the war...

Meanwhile on the left...you can no longer tell where the far left is...it's just the left...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So Saddam and his goons killed an average of 60,000 people a year
President Bush is actually the greatest liberator of Muslims in history,


that first part is misleading, not all those deaths occured continuously and gradudually, they were punctuated events of mass death i think. Not that this is ok or anything..

And what one calls liberations another can call disruption.

People are still dying there...and just because theres less 'on avg' dying doesn't make the deaths okay.

Why must the American Soldiers seem so righteous and bold and right? Why is setting up a "democracy" considered liberation?

Its liberation just because on the surface, every citizen can vote for officials?


more like countdown till the conservative response #1234 "bush should be put on rushmoore"

[cecil collins]

I'm just glad that Whott has his finger on the pulse. I had no clue what a state the leftist liberals are in. I'm glad he can tell us exactly what they, in general terms think, feel, and do. I am also glad that noone cares what he thinks.

[The Big Chicken]

The theme of the thread is not about Hitler, but to humor you:

Hitler's Rise to Power
Once released from prison, Hitler decided to seize power constitutionally rather than by force of arms. Using demagogic oratory, Hitler spoke to scores of mass audiences, calling for the German people to resist the yoke of Jews and Communists, and to create a new empire which would rule the world for 1,000 years.
Hitler's Nazi party captured 18% of the popular vote in the 1930 elections. In 1932, Hitler ran for President and won 30% of the vote, forcing the eventual victor, Paul von Hindenburg, into a runoff election. A political deal was made to make Hitler chancellor in exchange for his political support. He was appointed to that office in January 1933.



Your point would be?

Oh, and your Google search is deceptive because it does not tell the whole story.

[gtownspur]

neocon taking the moral high ground?

how...transparently pompous of you


also comparing this bullshit to WWII and calling liberals socialists

most original post of the year

Your whole liberal economic scheme has always been distribution of wealth, and destruction of private ownership. Liberals seek to Put the Power of the State above God for everyone.Liberals seek to eradicate some of the sound principles of our country that has stood the test of time.
Liberals also in every case align themselves with the socialist in every war or dispute.

Liberals and SOcialist are the same. They worship the State and abhor religious people who happen to disagree with their agenda. Liberals and Socialist both agree that the ends justify the means. THey have no moral grounds except those that further a stronger state.

[mookie2001]

thats kind of why bush and his neocon homeboys pissed all over the constitution with the patriot act
because theyre against the power of the state

[gtownspur]

thats kind of why bush and his neocon homeboys pissed all over the constitution with the patriot act
because theyre against the power of the state
read american history dumbass and you'll find that the american govt always made special provisions and exceptions for war.

[cecil collins]

read american history dumbass and you'll find that the american govt always made special provisions and exceptions for war.


I don't think this regime plans on the Patriot act ever going away, and that is the problem. This is not a war time bill, so think a little dumbass.

[cecil collins]

Liberals and SOcialist are the same. They worship the State and abhor religious people who happen to disagree with their agenda. Liberals and Socialist both agree that the ends justify the means. THey have no moral grounds except those that further a stronger state.

Are you the judge of moral grounds? I concede that republicans own the rights to hypochritical, superficial morality. There is just not much substance to their morals. How is it that only liberals have an agenda, yet the conservatives are starting all the wars?

[gtownspur]

Are you the judge of moral grounds? I concede that republicans own the rights to hypochritical, superficial morality. There is just not much substance to their morals. How is it that only liberals have an agenda, yet the conservatives are starting all the wars?

Your a true twat. You have no morals because people like you act and state that they are relative. On one occasion people like you will state that all morals are relative, and then when anyone calls you on it you fucking call me a hypocritical superficial moralist???
I am no judge. But jackass libs who throw away their morality to further their agenda are sick, and sadly there are many of them. Tell me if conservatives are the only ones warmongering. Who started Vietnam. Who started Korea. who started Bosnia and Somalia??? THats right. It is liberals who think they have the moral high ground not the other way around. In another form, It is liberals who are going around and forcing morality through the courts instead of the ballot box.
And you call me a hypocrite.

Liberals believe americans dont know any better and that the state is the judge of all. liberals hold Their socialist view as the originator of morality. If it is moral for so called "nomadic" people to be ruled by a despot and american defense to be inactive by doing so; all in the name of liberal appeasement for socialist dictators so that they can sip their martinis at their Manhattan social gathering and Celebrity fundraisers, To tell the president to solve terrorism and at the same time not letting him apply the solutions to do so and thus yourselves provinding nothing as an alternative and allowing inaction so that you can turn around and say you support the war on terrorism, is absolute shit! ANd i will call you on it Hypocrite.

To fucking cave in on the Iraqi war and vote on the resolution to go to war because it is popular at the time and then not fund it and hope the Iraq war caves so you can capitalize and at the same time say you are strong on defense. Hypocrisy!

TO say acting unilaterally under self defense is barbaric and primitive, yet your past president(clinton) did the exact same thing and with our national interest not at stake all while using air wars and sending in "token" missiles to destroy pharmaceutical plants and doing nothing. Clinton did not ask for a vote to go to Bosnia. He executed the war on behalf of UN favor and dispensed our military as a mercenary outfit w/o public consensus and congress and yet he is hailed as a foreign policy guru.?? WTF. and then one lonely day we get attacked and Bush does the same in afghanistan and iraq and he is an idiot. By sending the troops by public and congressional mandate and only lacking support from "allies" who were trading with Sadaam.... and you fucking call him a Cowboy. it seems its right to only wage war only when our interest is not at stake and we're the enforcerers of a Body of Despots-the UN, who have dictators runing the show who dont represent their people.
HYPOCRITE.

You left kooky liberals act as if your opposition to iraq is justified because there were no links to al queda, and yet you same assholes opposed Afhghanistan and told everyone that we were going to have troops come back in body bags by the thousands in Afghanistan because it was the Soviets Vietnam! You have been wrong about every thing except the WMD's not being found. ANd yet you think you are the cream of the crop when it comes to foreign policy.
Hypocrite!

The U.S lost entire continents to Soviet style Communism because of Democrats like Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. They wanted to appease the communist dictators but every time they tried they would laugh them off and tell the to f- off. Your shitty appeasement has done jack shit. Stalin and Lennin(who the leftwing democrats worshipped) thought your party was a douchebag and knew they could use "useful idiots" *(what they called you in private) like yourself to further their agenda. It is a known fact that Democrat administrations turned a blind eye to Communist Infiltration thank goodness to the findings of the Army's Venoma project in the fifties. This project was uncovered to the public by Patrick Moynihan a liberal democrat of New York.
Democrats tried appeasement and it never worked. There was one time it did.. but guess who was the one who succeeded. NIXON.. Thats right. After the passing of Nixon all of China greived and held a memorial service to Nixon. What has every other dicator done for their prosty Demcorats. Jack Shit! Because they knew you were weak and you were tools. It finally took the outspending fury of an ailing republican president with "supposedly" a half brain in the office in the last of his administration to take down the Soviets and convince them that they couldnt compete.

And once again you and your type claim to know whats good for america!
Bullshit.

[mookie2001]

sad
people who like Bush have to argue against the constitution nowadays

fucking hilarious but sad

[JoeChalupa]

Very well written column. Point taken.

[cecil collins]

Your a true twat.

Huh.


I am no judge.

That's all you had to say, I mean why waste all of your anger and bitterness on some boring rant. Shouldn't you be off yelling at people who don't agree with you...perhaps your kids.