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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (198463)	8/26/2004 12:57:06 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574302

Questioning this administration is not without justification. Painting them as being anything like the nazis is without justification. Yes, that's what the Germans said when Hitler was taking the Jews. That isn't literally true but more importantly its logically a worthless argument. Its true a lot of Germans even German Jews didn't think Hitler was going to be anywhere near as bad as he was. That however is not an argument for comparing anyone else to Hitler. That wasn't my argument........I said there were some similarities. I listed them for you. I explained to you that they concerned me and for that reason, I am watching this administration closely. What more can I say? If you told me my cat was like Hitler, and I said that he isn't an oppressive racist killer, you could tell me "a lot of Germans didn't think Hitler was either". You would have shown nothing about my cat, just like you have shown nothing about Bush. I have shown you but I believe your partisanship prevents you from admitting there is any significance to them. There is nothing I can do about it but move on. What do you think Commander-in-Chief means? Its not just a title. No its not just a title, but the president is not personally responsible for the crimes of all government employees, and if he was we would have had to lock up every president in our history. Commander-in-Chief means you are commander of the all the military forces for the US. The military's actions reflect back on the president. He is responsible for those actions. That does not mean he is put in jail. It does mean he must take responsibility for whatever crimes his troops commit and act accordingly. What do you think Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are? They are not death camps, or slave labor camps. They are not places where millions of people are getting killed, or even places where systematic fully approved human rights abuses have happened. They aren't vaguely like Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek ect. Even under Saddam Abu Ghraib wasn't like those places (Saddam killed a lot of people but not as many as the Nazi's and not with the same methods, he would shoot them or drop chem weapon bombs on them, not round them up in to death camps in vast numbers). Under American control Abu Ghraib and Gitmo have been more like some of the bad civilian prisons found in the US and other developed democracies then they have been like Hitler's death camps. They are internment camps........they are worse then our prisons because up til recently, the inmates had no legal recourse. They were being held without being told what crime they had committed. The only differences with the Hilter camps is that there has been no killing [as far as I know] and that the torture is more mental than physical. Furthermore, I understand they are fed regularly. Because conditions were worse at Auschwitz does not make these places acceptable. They are bad places and are not typically found in a democracy......esp. one not at war. After WW II, most of us learned that internment camps are not a good idea. Apparently, the Bushies missed or ignored that lesson......that is worrisome. Yes there was. .the system was rife with it. No solid evidence supports that conclusion. Yes, there was......I posted articles discussing it within the past month. Some examples: the UN is coopting America's sovereignty; Germany and France are not our allies; we are great and must go it alone.......bla bla bla bla. That example doesn't make any sense. Not giving Germany and France a veto over our foreign policy is hardly an ultra-nationalist act. How long to you think that defense will hold water? No one was suggesting allowing G or F to have veto power over us. Its called collaboration.........a policy position that seems to be alien to neocons. You can only collaborate if you have agreement. We don't have agreement with Germany and France, so the choice for the Bush administration was to do what it thought should be done, or to give G and F a veto. That is what insisting on only acting in collaboration means, it means giving other people a veto on your actions. That is an immature perspective that has no place in foreign diplomacy. Collaboration means compromise, not veto. Mature relationships require such compromise. Had we collaborated and compromised with our allies, we might not be in the quagmire we find ourselves. ted