arisbe

I'm not surprised the isolation wings of the libertarian and conservative movements have taken to calling the pro-war contingents Nazis.

All of their other attempts to sway public opinion have failed. Therefore it's time to trot out the "Nazi!!11!!!1!one!11!" accusations.

Unnamed websites, anonymous "letters", etc.. Color me bored.

From:

May I color you angry instead?

From:

Depends on what color you want to use. I am partial to green.

From:

Irish? Envy? Environment?

From:

British racing.

From:

Don't know anything about Brit racing. But wasn't green one of the Byzantine racing colors in the time of Justinian?

From:

I have no idea.

From:

winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com

Exactly, however, just because it's not fascist doesn't mean its not wrong.

From:

That remains to be seen.

From:

winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com

You also have an interesting implication that public acceptance equals legitimatization. I find that quint notion to be rooted in overvaluing democracy to the point that we don't remember that we aren't even a democratic government (there is no mention of "democracy" in either the constitution or the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers actively discourage direct democratic ideas.)

From:

On the contrary, I accused my erstwhile friends of valuing public opinion to the point of invoking the dreaded "Nazi!" claim.

From:

marginaleye.livejournal.com

I am so incredibly tired of hearing people invoking Godwin's so-called "Law" in an attempted to defuse, deflect, or otherwise trivialize accusations of would-be Nazi-hood among the neo-cons and/or Dominionists.

Some people really are Nazi-wannabes, and I see nothing wrong with saying it, flat-out.

From:

Funny, nobody has accused the war party of being Nazis, only of Fascist tendencies. It is the Neocons who accuse their critics of being Nazis because of their lack of loyalty to Israel.

From:

Someone invoked Godwin's law? Damnit, I missed it.

Anyone have this on tape?

From:

I always find it amusing when those who favor non-interventionism (as did all of our Founding Fathers and great statesmen) are pejoratively labeled 'isolationists.' What is isolationist about not wanting to fight any war that is not morally defensible and in the national-security interest of the United States, as opposed to one that is for the security of Israel?

From:

Not at all, there are times to be isolationist and times not to be.

And our Founding Fathers were not isolationists. Some of them, notably President Washington, warned against getting involved in the intrigue that plagued Europe at the time.

Or have you forgotten our invasions of Canada?

What is not morally defensible about hunting down and killing the people who attack you?

Ahh, of course, it is all the fault of the "dirty Jews". How silly of me!

From:

marginaleye.livejournal.com

What is not morally defensible about hunting down and killing the people who attack you?

So if Mr. Jones attacks you, you're entitled to kick down Mr. Smith's door and beat him up because they both live in the same neighborhood, and you're pretty sure you saw the two of them chatting together a couple of weeks ago? Yeah, right.

From:

If only Mr. Bush would take some real interest in the criminals of 9/11 rather than his foolish scheme of "democratizing" Iraq, Iran, Syria, the whole Middle East in fact -- except for one country.

From:

President Bush is taking a real interest in Al Qaeda. He's also wise enough to know that the United States has foolishly looked the other way at growing threats to our nation in the name of "globalism" and "multiculturalism".

And the word has gotten out: if you are a threat to the United States, your days are numbered.

From:

I hope it's not too late. In our eagerness to go after Saddam we failed to close the trap on Osama. Now his people are raising hell in Iraq.

From:

What is not morally defensible about hunting down and killing the people who attack you?

Hunting down and killing those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001 is perfectly morally and is something I would support unqualifiedly. The trouble is that's not what we're doing. Perhaps you haven't been listening to Mr. Bush lately, but in his inaugural, he said nothing about 9-11, terrorism, or al-Qaeda. His mission is now to spread democracy throughout the world, toppling one "tyrannical regime" after another. This is an immoral mission for the United States military, whose job it is to protect and secure our liberty.

Ahh, of course, it is all the fault of the "dirty Jews". How silly of me!

It has nothing to do with being silly, just ignorant. I said nothing about Jews and meant nothing about Jews. You might wish to read my actually comments before you reply next time. What I actually said was that we ought not fight wars that are in Israel's interests and not our own. The war in Iraq was not in our national-security interest, but it was in Israel's. This is undeniable. For the neoconservatives, what is good for Israel is good for the United States; for the rest of us, however, when our interests diverge from Israel's, we should stand up for our own.

From:

lilchiva.livejournal.com

You have to admit it was in the US's economic interests to invade right?

From:

Well, not exactly. If so why did they have to mislead Congress?

From:

lilchiva.livejournal.com

I would say because most reasonable people don't believe that a sustainable economy is based off of war. More over, most people (including our politicians), do not/can not think about the world in those terms and would be appalled to have to do so.

None of this changes the idea that this was part of the neocon's economic agenda (http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131523.asp), in our long term economic/geopolitical plan (http://www.odci.gov/nic/special_globaltrends2010.html#middleeast) as a nation, and something planned and accepted since Kissinger was in the White House (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565845684/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-0108589-4031224).

Most simply there is more oil there than most places.

From:

The peak oil theory. Which many of them accept. And the threat that Saddam would sell his oil for Euros rather than US dollars and the rest of OPEC might follow.

I'm afraid you have a point here.

From:

No, not at all. Perhaps it was the financial interests of some corporations, but the majority of the U.S. economy has suffered because of this war. War, in essence, is the vast transfer of capital and resources away from the productive economy into a non-productive entity: the U.S. military. Of course we need an army, and it is the legitimate and moral duty of the government to protect us, but war is not good for the general economy. That is a myth!

From:

lilchiva.livejournal.com

My understanding is that the neo-con economic plan states differently. If we were to look at the deficit as a short term loss then we could see our current economic upswing as a mid to long term gain. The idea is that one makes perpetual war and therefore constantly increases the need to for the military-industrial complex and via that stimulates the economy for private interests which in turn is supposed to be an overall gain for the economic interest of our citizens.

We have done this at length for about half a century and many think it's the reason for our market dominance. The last time this happened to this extent was during the Regan Era.

From:

This is an immoral mission for the United States military, whose job it is to protect and secure our liberty.

I disagree. 9-11 showed that waiting for them to attack us could be fatal to our nation. Our enemies are our enemies, no matter where they are.

It has nothing to do with being silly, just ignorant. I said nothing about Jews and meant nothing about Jews. You might wish to read my actually comments before you reply next time.

So when you said "Israel" you meant...?

he war in Iraq was not in our national-security interest

I disagree. Saddam has been a continuing threat to our nation since 1990.

Israel is quite capable of taking care of Iraq as well, but has not done so at the request of the United States. They do not need us to fight their wars. They've proven they can handle anything any Arab nation sends against them.

You have yet to demonstrate that acting in our best interest is wrong, but what you have done is state that because it might align with the interest of ~~the Jews~~ Israel, we should ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

From:

So when you said "Israel" you meant...?

Had you continued on to the next line of my post, you would have found the answer. I'm getting rather tired of explaining and re-explaining my posts to you, since you are totally incapable of reading them fully. Here is the next sentence in my post, which answers your needless question: "What I actually said was that we ought not fight wars that are in Israel's interests and not our own."

You keep trying to make this about Jews, and it is not. That Israel is a Jewish state is quite inconsequential to my objection of our uncritical support for their policies. I feel the same way about any other U.S. ally. We should not fight a war for the United Kingdom that is not in our security interests, and the same is true for any other U.S. ally. The United States should not fight any war unless it is morally defensible and in our own national-security interests. Plain and simple! Stop trying to make me out to be an anti-Semite. You're only making yourself look foolish.

From:

Had you continued on to the next line of my post, you would have found the answer.

Oh, I did. I found nothing to convince me that you meant anything other than "the Jews".

I also addressed the line you claim I ignored:

srael is quite capable of taking care of Iraq as well, but has not done so at the request of the United States. They do not need us to fight their wars. They've proven they can handle anything any Arab nation sends against them.

So, obviously, I've proven that I can read.

Your turn!

You claim that we are fighting Israel's wars, but have yet to demonstrate that.

I'll wait....

From:

winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com

Did you read Lew Rockwell's post at the new year about Red State Fascism?

From:

Yes. And anyone who hasn't should read it here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html).

From:

keith418.livejournal.com

It's a great piece!

From:

Great article, Frank. Thanks for posting it!

From:

otterboy.livejournal.com

Excellent article. It really reinforces my thoughts on the power of ignorance. Not for the ignorant, of course, but those who benefit from widespread ignorance. Freedom, as used in the current administration, is a blatant Orwellian illustration. Yet, so many genuinely good people have accepted that freedom looks like what the Bush administration prescribes. I hear some of my dearest friends and family casually commenting that the "whole Middle East should be wiped out." The objectification/oversimplification of the situation is maddening and frustrating for me. I explain to some of these critics, some devout Christians, that the Middle East is filled with Christians and diverse ethnicities/cultures, and I get a shocked reaction. How should violence be labeled? One man's spreading of freedom is another man's terrorism. The scary thing, though, is that the people who blindly support our government and everything "America stands for" are acting in a way as if to ensure its untimely demise, as the article so strikingly demonstrates.

From:

People who can't recognize Roman Catholics as fellow Christians can't be expected to care very much about Orthodox, Jacobites, Chaldeans, Maronites, Melkites, and so on.

Democracy isn't a good thing in itself. It depends on what majority you are empowering.

Freedom isn't a good thing either if the people being liberated want to do evil and have the means to do it.

From:

publius-aelius.livejournal.com

...I think that American society has a Messianic, millenialist tendency to fight "crusades" that will cause this nation to IMPLODE. I think that our Puritan past is at the root of it, and I think it weighs much more heavily upon the consciences of the vast majority--particularly in the "Red States" than anything inscribed in the Founders' documents. I also think American "fascism" will look, feel and tast very different from the European version but that it will be far more virulent because of its Protestant Fundamentalist "idealism." All of this is foretold in the deeply prophetic penultimate chapter of Harold Bloom's The American Religion. I'm going to make the best effort I can to get myself and those I love OUT of this debauched, heretical and perverted society as quickly as I can!

From:

There may be some truth to that, but nothing all that new. I think of John Brown and the War between the States.

From:

tausirhasirim.livejournal.com

(1) Societies based in middle class values that move towards two-class societies - as I believe America is slowly doing - tend to turn sharply right, rather than the sharp left turn two-class societes tend to take in comparable circumstances. Thus I expect that to be the direction things will continue to go in here, barring a burst of unexpected grace.

(2) America has been called the land of "Friendly Fascism". I think there is a germ of truth in this.

(3) One need not be an isolationist or noninterventionist - I am not - to consider the war in Iraq not just wrong, but bizarre. It comes close to an alternate universe Phil Dick zap gun world in which, in response to Pearl Harbor, the United States declares war on Spain. After all, it was a fascist state, and much easier to beat than Germany or Japan.

Allen sez, when government gets this bizarre the Weird Times are truly upon us. Fellow citizens of Weimar, we do need to wake up awfully soon.

From:

lilburne.livejournal.com

I'm not sure I'd use the f-word, but I have certainly been exposed to the popular attitudes the article describes. There are people who would probably form a natural constituency for a politician who wanted to lock up dissenters and start putting a real hurtin' on some foreigners.

President Bush is not the leader these folks are looking for. He's no Woody Wilson, signing laws making it a crime to criticize the federal government's war policies. Bush is no FDR or Earl Warren, seeking to banish citizens from their homes and intern them in prison camps based solely on their ancestry. He's no Winston Churchill, willing to use methods of warfare that kill lots of civilians.

If a politician arose today like Wilson, FDR, Warren or Churchill advocating the roundup and imprisonment of Arab-Americans and critics of the war, as well as vicious warmaking tactics, the politician could rely on a following. I don't know how successful (s)he'd be, but he'd certainly make a splash.

From: