Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (14338)	3/11/2003 12:25:18 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

The New Nazi's By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Mar 06, 2003 It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of The Third Reich 70 years ago. I consider Saddam Hussein to be "Hitler lite" because he has the same virulent anti-semitism, the same callous disregard for human life, and the identical lust for power that Adolf possessed. The only difference between the two villains is the size of the moustache. Back in the 1930's, millions the world over simply did not want to think about the evil that Hitler was brewing up. France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they are today on the Iraq question. Stalin ultimately signed a treaty with Hitler making it possible for him to use most of his forces to crush Europe, and France simply allowed Hitler to violate the Treaty of Versailles, even more than the 17 times Saddam has violated current UN mandates. Britain went along with France in the '30's, but now it seems the UK has learned from its historical mistakes. And then there's the Pope. John Paul II recently came out and said that any war against Iraq would be "immoral." Back in the '30's, Pope Pius XII actually supported Hitler politically, at least in the beginning of his rise when Pius was stationed in Germany. The Third Reich was considered a bulwark against Communism, which the Church greatly feared. Subsequently, Pius kept quiet about the atrocities of Hitler's regime because he knew that the Vatican itself could easily be vanquished by the Huns. Today, John Paul deplores the violence that comes with any war but is at a loss to explain how terrorism and the states that enable it should be dealt with. Remember, the Pope did not approve of the military action against the Taliban. Peace, of course, should be the goal of all civilized human beings. Millions of Americans are against a war in Iraq today and millions of us were vehemently opposed to confronting Hitler as well. Back then the anti-war movement was led by Charles Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy who largely dismissed accusations of Nazi brutality and weapons production as propaganda. In 1937, SS Chief Henrich Himmler was even on the cover of Time Magazine. I have the issue. The article criticized Himmler and hinted at barbaric behavior, but there was no "smoking gun." The failure to confront the obvious evil of the Nazis early, of course, led to the deaths of more than 55 million human beings in Europe. Millions of jews were stunned when they were led by German guards to the gas chambers. How could human beings do this? Even after evidence of mass executions surfaced, many the world over refused to believe it. Liberating American soldiers were horrified at what they found in the concentration camps. Most had no idea of what they were really fighting against. Does anyone today believe that Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so? So what is the difference between a dictator like Saddam and Adolph Hitler? It continues to astound me that 37% of Americans, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, do not support the removal of Saddam Hussein unless other countries, which do not share our danger, sign on. I mean, why allow a dictator who has weapons that would make Hitler salivate, remain a threat to the world? Does it make sense that Cameroon has to sign on before we neutralize this threat? If France, German, China, and Russia would support the United States against Saddam, he'd already be out of power. If France, Russia, and Britain had marched into Germany in 1933 there would have been no World War or Holocaust. Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of killing people, that's a fact. And the only way that evil will be stopped, is for just and courageous people to confront it. billoreilly.com

To: lurqer who wrote (14338)	3/11/2003 12:33:33 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

......according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll..... 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago. And 55 percent of respondents would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council...... charlotte.com

To: lurqer who wrote (14338)	3/11/2003 12:38:28 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

Polls show majority supports war effort .........Two-thirds support military action against Iraq. About that many say United Nations support is desirable but not necessary if the United States has the support of other countries such as Australia, Britain and Spain, according to an ABC poll....... newsok.com

To: lurqer who wrote (14338)	3/11/2003 12:44:58 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

........According to the survey, 44 percent of Americans said they think the United States should take military action soon, up from 35 percent a week ago. Half now see Iraq as an immediate threat that requires military action now, compared to 45 percent last week. The poll found that Americans continue to favor consultations with U.S. allies, although that does not necessarily mean going along with what the allies or the United Nations wants. Sixty percent of respondents said they believe the United States needs to consider the views of its allies before taking military action against Iraq. More than half, 55 percent, said they would still support military action even if the UN did not support a U.-S.-sponsored resolution authorizing an invasion........ abcnews.go.com