An Iraqi Hitler?

[demwing]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=16&u=/nm/20041213/wl_nm/iraq_yawar_dc

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar said in remarks published Monday that long-term instability in his country could give birth to an "Iraqi Hitler" if citizens continued to feel humiliated and despondent.

"This could in the long term create an environment in which an Iraqi Hitler could emerge like the one created by the defeat of Germany and the humiliation of Germans in World War I," Yawar told the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper.

****************** END ******************

Great. This should give the End-Of-Timers something to ponder. Bush claims he is making the world a safer place, yet his Iraq war is creating an environment that could suck in a mid-eastern Hitler.

Can anyone say Anti-Christ?

And, if Bush is laying groundwork for the Anti-Christ, doesn't that make hime the equivalent of the Biblical False Prophet?

Even if you don't believe in all this stuff, AND even if you're not bothered by the fact that some people DO believe all this stuff, isn't it apparent that throwing the middle east into several prolonged wars involving the world's military might, pitting Chritian against Islamic and secular against non-secular, all over a land rich in the world's most sought after resource, is a very STUPID idea?

The one thing that would benefit the world - middle eastern stability, is being shot all to hell by an American President.

We are pitting ourselves against the world. Strike that. Bush is setting the world against the US.

When the founding fathers created this country, they were committing treason--high treason against the King. At such times, treason is not merely justifiable, it is mandated by the precepts of liberty.

Perhaps it is time we spoke of such treason again.

[NewJeffCT]

1. wait a minute?

Didn't we just depose the Iraqi Hitler in Saddam? I mean, that's what we demonized him as, no?

[bryant69]

2. I don't know what you mean by such treason

I don't know if there are that many if any people on Democratic Underground who think that the war in Iraq was a good idea. And I think there are plenty who have marched and protested against this war.

But without knowing what you mean by treason, it's hard to agree with this argument.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bemildred]

3. Thomas Jefferson:

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends , it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0300.htm

I think that's sort of what he is talking about.

[bryant69]

4. Oh well that clears it all up

Allow me to be more direct in my questioning. Do you advocate taking up arms against the Government? You see in 1776 and thereafter, the colonists took up arms against the British Colonial Government and destroyed it. Are you proposing that we here, on Democratic Underground, should take up arms against the Bush administration?

[bemildred]

5. I'm not proposing anything.

I was trying to answer the question you asked.
I won't make that mistake again.

[bryant69]

6. Well you were answering for someone else

Who also, apparently, doesn't want to asnwer the question. But this is traditional. Talk loudly and vigalently about some revolutionary plan, but go silent when anyone asks for details.

[demwing]

8. You're quick to judge me

Pardon me for taking a lunch break.

Do I want to take up arms against our government?

Well, first of all, can you blame anyone if they were reluctant to discuss such things online? Any agents of the government reading this. Raise your hands.... yes, as I thought. Not a one!

Also, I believe it would be a violation of this website rules to answer this question positively.

So you put me in a position where I must publically answer no, regardless of how I feel in private.

Read that as you will.

But at some point, if the officials that hold power are not held accountable, they must be removed. If they refuse to step down, they must be forced. If the courts and the press and the military are turned against the people, they must be resisted.

Force is an option that can not be removed from the table, but it should never be a first option.

So, are we at such a stage where circumstances dictate extreme actions to protect our freedoms and to maintain the power of the government within the hands of the people who are governed?

That is a question that needed to be asked, and I have asked it. Does anyone have a reasonable solution as to how that question can be resolved without endangering those who seek to hear the answer?

[bryant69]

11. I can blame anybody for not having the courage of ther convictions

You expressed an opinion, I responded to that opinion. I'm not sure what i did that was so offensive.

I don't think it's time to take up arms against the government--and anybody, liberal or conservative who took up arms to depose President Bush by force, I'd feel an obligation to, at a minimum, speak out against them. I don't like Bush, and I think it's a tragedy that we get him for another four years--but I don't think that a coup is the answer.

[demwing]

13. You can SAY whatever you like

but simply saying something does not make it true, and claiming someone doesn't have the courage of their convictions , based solely upon their ability to type off an answer within the frame of your personal concept of timeliness, could easily be construed as offensive.

But don't get me wrong--I'm not angry. In fact, I think your protests of innocense are midly funny.

At some point, the question must be asked as to when it is appropriate to draw a line in the sand and defend that line by whatever means. With two presidential elections behind us where fraud is rampant, with that falsely selected President systematically destroying our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, with the same so called President pre-emptively attacking a foreign state--in the process murdering thousands of innocents--and justifying his actions on a series of calculated lies, I'm wondering what you would consider sufficiently terrible enough to justify action?

This is OUR government. It operates only under the consent of the governed.

If we do nothing to stop OUR government from committing crimes, we have then become the criminals.

[bryant69]

15. We live in a democracy

In a democracy sometimes the other guys win. I worked to get Kerry and Edwards elected donating my money and my time. But it didn't work out that way--if fruad is proven (and it hasn't been yet), than there are further steps we need to take. Generally through the court system.

We (the American people) gave our consent to the Bush Administration on November 2nd. I don't like the answer we came up with, I think we made a terrible mistake. But we had an election and President Bush won.

You want to play out some revolutionary scenario, go right ahead. It's been tried a couple of times, and doesn't seem to have panned out so far in the United States. There are plenty of people who would join you. I won't.

On the other hand. Thousands of civilians dead. That's kind of a trump card. That's been true in every war, but still. Why isn't the deaths of thousands of innocents enough to get me to take up arms and join a revolutionary cadre (or whatever you decide to call it) against the government. Maybe I'm racist and just don't give a damn if brown people die. Maybe I'm jingoist and only care about America. I don't know. It's hard to justify.

I guess the only real justification is that the effects of a revolution would be worse. This cure is worse than the disease. There's no way to revolt against President Bush right now in such a way as to have a non-repressive state. The American people aren't angry enough to support a revolt. Obviously 51% or so would go for President Bush right out of the gate. You'd also lose as much as half of those who voted for Senator Kerry. Assuming you can take power (not at all a foregone conclusion) how do you maintain control over such a large population without resorting to many of the exact same methods the Bush Administration is using? More to the point, timeliness; why is joining a revolutionary movement going to get troops out of Iraq any quicker, or curb President Bush's power any quicker than say working through legal channels (say by working to get a Democratic Majority in Congress in 2006 and a Democrat in the white house in 2008)?

At any rate I do admit the courage of convictions was a bit over the top, so I apologize for that.

Bryant

[bemildred]

12. No, I wasn't. nt

[demwing]

9. Yes, that's sort of what I'm talking about.

And I would add that it goes beyond the right of the people to alter or abolish, it becomes the responsibility of those who are able to act, to act.

[bemildred]

14. Thank you, I thought that was it.

Apparently the thoughts of President Jefferson are offensive to some.

[Johonny]

7. I think he's right

Hitler was helped into power by the fact that the German citizens had no faith in their post WW I government.

[Deja Q]

10. Cool. And yet America's hitler has 59 million people putting faith in him

:-(