[Mb-civic] Iraq is not World War II: Bush's comparison is an
affront to WWII veterans and shameless marketing for more war
michael at michaelbutler.com
Sun Sep 4 06:30:30 PDT 2005
NewsTarget.com printable article
Friday, September 02, 2005
Iraq is not World War II: Bush's comparison is an affront to WWII veterans
and shameless marketing for more war
This week, in the latest desperate move to shore up public support for the
increasingly unpopular war on Iraq, President Bush attempted to frame the
war as a modern version of World War II. He attempted to equate 9/11 with
Pearl Harbor, and the Iraqi resistance fighters with Nazi soldiers.
For any who have even limited knowledge of U.S. history, this invocation of
World War II is a gross distortion of historical fact as well as a
disparaging of the honor of those courageous American soldiers who fought in
the war. Personally, I am outraged to hear our President invoke such imagery
in order to market his personal warmongering campaign to a gullible
population. But let's forget about my own opinion for a moment and look at
the historical record here.
First, let's consider the stark differences between World War II and Bush's
war on Iraq.
In World War II, nation states (Germany and Japan) formally declared war on
the United States
In Bush's war, there is no identifiable nation-state enemy
In 1941, to the great surprise of Roosevelt, Germany formally declared war
on the United States in the days following the Pearl Harbor attack. With
Japan's attack and Germany's declaration, we knew exactly who we were at war
with. The enemy had a name, a nation and a geographic location.
But in Bush's war on Iraq, there is no such identifiable enemy. Clearly, we
are not at war with the Iraqi people, as they are basically just milling
around Iraq trying to survive. Clearly we're not at war with Saddam Hussein,
as he has long since been captured. So who are we at war with? A "terrorist
network?" Terrorist cells? There is no identifiable enemy here. That's why
Bush had to declare war on a concept -- the "war on terror" -- rather than
actually naming an enemy.
In World War II, the countries liberated by the U.S. (France in particular)
welcomed U.S. soldiers
In Bush's war, the vast majority of Iraqis hate the Americans and want them
The French gleefully welcomed U.S. troops during the liberation of France in
the Summer of 1942. But Iraqi citizens flat-out want U.S. troops to leave.
You can't liberate a country through an undesired occupation. Bush may call
the Iraqi occupation a "freedom operation," but it's not freedom to the
people who don't want you there in the first place. To them, it's just
another military dictatorship. There is no such thing as freedom at
In World War II, when Hitler was defeated, the war was over
In Bush's war, even after Saddam Hussein's capture, the U.S. continues to
If the war in Iraq was against Saddam Hussein, and if Hussein has long since
been captured, then what are we still doing in Iraq? The answer, of course,
is that we're installing a puppet government and calling it Democracy.
In World War II, Congress declared war
In Bush's war, no act of war has ever been declared by Congress
In his recent speech, Bush declared, "We are at war!" That's funny, I
thought only Congress could declare war. Apparently, we are no longer a
nation of law, we are a dictatorship where one man (sane or otherwise) can
declare war, and our spineless members of Congress will go right along with
it, even when such an act is blatantly illegal under U.S. law.
There's a reason this nation's laws say that only Congress can declare war:
because our founding fathers knew that the decision to go to war should
never be left to one man. It should be a consensus. With Iraq, there is no
such consensus: only the military conquest of one man who abides by no law,
domestic or international.
In World War II, our international allies were desperate for U.S. support
In Bush's war, there is virtually no international support
By 1940 - 1941, Britain was absolutely desperate for help from the United
States. In letters written to Roosevelt by Churchill, Britain was described
as being near collapse, running out of resources, funds and men. If the U.S.
did not assist Britain, it would fall under the armies of Hitler, just as
France had long since fallen.
In World War II, our strategic and economic allies begged for our help.
International support was strong. But in Iraq, there is little to no
international support except from Britain. The international community
rightly sees this military effort as an invasion, not as self defense. In
fact, arguing that an invasion of Iraq is self defense is military insanity.
But that never stopped Bush, who calls it, "Preemptive defense."
In World War II, we fought against an aggressor
In Bush's war, we are the aggressor
In the 1930's and 1940's, Hitler was clearly the aggressor. He invaded
Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, the Soviet Union and a number of other
countries. His army was unmistakably attempting to wipe out one nation after
another, replacing them with his own governments, people, culture and
Today, the U.S. is the aggressor. Our troops have invaded and now occupy a
land to which the United States quite obviously has no rightful claim. And
just as Hitler attempted to install his own governmental control in the
lands he invaded, the U.S. is now imposing its own government upon the
people of Iraq, almost entirely against their will. The war in Iraq is no
noble war to stop an imperialistic regime, it is in fact an imperialistic
war that mirrors the actions of Nazi Germany.
In World War II, following Pearl Harbor, the American people were almost
universally supportive of the war effort
In Bush's War, the majority of Americans are now against the war
In 1941, although pre-war opposition was strong (the "America First"
movement), that changed dramatically after Pearl Harbor. By 1942, the vast
majority of Americans were fully supportive of the war effort, and that
support remained strong through the end of the war in 1945.
But in today's war with Iraq, the majority of the American people are
actually against the war! Although early pro-war sentiment was manufactured
by Bush (through outright lies and false evidence about WMDs, by the way)
the American people are growing weary of this costly war, and they no longer
offer majority support.
In World War II, the U.S. largely honored international law governing
Prisoners of War (POWs)
In Bush's war, POWs are being detained, tortured, and deprived of Geneva
Although there are certainly exceptions, U.S. troops in World War II largely
provided prisoners of war with basic human rights. Prisoners were not
starved to death, for example, nor sexually assaulted. But today, POWs (or
"enemy combatants," as Bush calls them) are routinely tortured, humiliated,
beaten, sodomized and subjected to all sorts of inhumane treatments at
Similarities between World War II and Bush's war on Iraq
While there are many difference between World War II and Bush's war on Iraq,
there are actually far more similarities among the two when you compare
current U.S. actions with those of Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler. The first
and most obvious is the tone of the highly emotional rhetoric used by both
warmongers (Bush and Hitler) to evoke anger and public support for military
Both Adolf Hitler and Bush use emotionally charged rhetoric to evoke public
Hitler's rhetoric was legendary, and he often used mad-sounding phrases to
paint his political opponents as murderers and fanatics. In his famous
Berlin speech in 1941, Hitler described the emergence of the Soviet army as
the, "Fanatical appearance of a murderous ideology."
Actually, that's not true. This phrase was uttered by President Bush just
days ago, right here in the United States in front of World War II veterans.
It just goes to show you that the warmongering speeches of Hitler and Bush
are nearly identical in their distortion of language (and invocation of
reactive emotion) to manipulate public opinion to support their wars.
Other rhetoric similarities are similarly disturbing. Both Hitler and Bush
framed their wars in black and white terms, declaring that, "You are either
with us, or against us." Both also spoke of anti-war opponents as
"unpatriotic" or, eventually, "treasonous." In Nazi Germany, those against
the war were hunted down and shot or publicly hanged. In the U.S., those
against the war are character-assassinated by the various defenders of the
Germany launched V2 rockets on civilian populations, the United States uses
Depleted Uranium (DU) shells on civilian populations
When it comes to the use of weapons of terror, Nazi Germany perfected the V2
rockets -- a terror weapon that rained down upon civilian populations in key
British cities (especially London).
The U.S., in similar fashion, uses weapons of mass destruction, banned by
the Geneva convention, to rain down cancer-causing radiation upon the Iraqi
civilian population through the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) shells.
Both were weapons of mass destruction. The only WMDs found in Iraq, by the
way, are the ones the U.S. is currently using against the Iraqi people. If
you detect any radiation in Iraq, it's from all the radioactive ammo the
U.S. military has been firing at the Iraqi people.
Both Adolf Hitler and Bush used blatant lies to manufacture support for the
To bolster support for his war, Hitler staged an attack on his own troops at
the Reichstag. With several dead Germans on his hands, Hitler feigned
outrage and used the event to incite rage against "the enemy."
Bush, in similar fashion, manufactured intelligence information about the
now-infamous weapons of mass destruction, then used the language and imagery
of mushroom clouds (nuclear weapons) to incite fear and rage among the
In both cases, these national leaders already had the intention of war. They
wanted war. And to get it, they both manufactured false evidence to which
the population would react in a predictable, pro-war manner.
Also notably, both the Reichstag event and 9/11 resulted in the
near-immediate passage of new laws restricting the civil rights of each
nation's own citizens. Both Hitler and Bush used these events to seize
greater power and control over their own populations. In Germany, this led
to devastating consequences when, for example, all Jews were required to
turn in their firearms, leaving them defenseless against the onslaught of
Nazi troops who marched them off to concentration camps.
In the United States, 9/11 and fictitious WMDs have been used to legalize
secret wiretapping of U.S. citizens, create a domestic spy service (to spy
on our own citizens), confiscate the library records or private citizens,
and to support other freedom-squashing tactics.
Both Adolf Hitler's invasions and Bush's occupation are about Oil
Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, and its push towards Stalingrad, was
largely about opening a channel to the rich oil fields to the South (which
were desperately needed by Hitler to continue fueling his war machine).
Today, Bush's war in Iraq is also about controlling oil, and not at all
about the fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction so frequently cited in the
Interestingly, Hitler's march eastward stalled out at Stalingrad, where the
Soviets launched an emboldened pincher attack that encircled Germany's 6th
Army and resulted in the surrender of 300,000 (or so) German troops. This
was the beginning of the end for Hitler's Eastern campaign. Bush is likewise
bogged down in an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, and the Iraqi rebels /
freedom fighters / insurgents are wreaking havoc on the invading U.S.
forces, much like Soviet citizens resisted Hitler at Stalingrad.
Bush is about to learn what Hitler learned long ago: war is different when
you're attacking their homes. People will fight viciously to defend their
own land, towns and cities. On top of that, U.S. troops are essentially
mercenaries. This isn't their war. They just signed up for student loans or
a decent paycheck. But for the Iraqis, this IS their war. It's personal,
it's in their face, and it's their land, after all. That's why the U.S.
military still cannot control the streets in Iraq (and never will).
Both Adolf Hitler and Bush claim that God supports their war
Invoking God is a frequent tactic of military madmen. Both Hitler and Bush
believe they are being guided by God himself, and that their war is a holy
war against the enemies of God. Historically, it is always a danger sign
when an ego-driven national leader invokes the name of God in order to
justify military action. A massacre is soon to follow.
Both Adolf Hitler and Bush deliberately confuse nationalism with patriotism
Today in the United States, Bush (and Bush supporters) claim that anyone who
is against the war is unpatriotic, if not downright treasonous. Hitler used
the same tactic. He equated war with national pride, and nurtured a
nationalistic fervor among the population that granted him popular support
for an unjustifiable war.
In America, you see the exact same mindset displayed on bumper stickers that
proclaim, "American pride," or, "these colors don't run." It takes a warped
mind to equate the invasion of another country with national defense, or to
equate killing others with pride, but that's exactly what both Hitler and
Bush have been able to pull off.
Both Adolf Hitler and Bush claimed their invasions and military occupations
were creating "freedom"
Throughout history, nearly all invasions, occupations and massacres have
been framed in the language of freedom. Bush's war is no exception. The U.S.
invasion, occupation and overthrow of the Iraqi government is, Bush says,
"freedom!" The United States, in its own humanitarian way, is delivering
what I call, "freedom at gunpoint" to the Iraqi people: support our freedom
or we'll shoot!
Hitler justified all his invasions in the same language. His early invasions
of Czechoslovakia, for example, were described as freeing the
"German-speaking people" of that nation. His extermination of Jews in Poland
was described as protecting the freedom of German citizens from the future
threat of Jews and Communists who might someday rise up and try to overthrow
Germany. It was a classic case of "pre-emptive defense" that has been
perfectly mirrored by President Bush today. The idea is, basically, kill
them before they can kill you. And frame the whole massacre in the language
of freedom and safety.
Gullible Americans have essentially bought this farce hook, line and sinker.
Both Adolf Hitler and Bush exploit low-income young males to do their
fighting for them
Mad national leaders never do their own fighting: they conscript young, poor
men into doing that for them. Hitler even had a national training program
that drafted boys as young as nine years old.
Today, Bush's war is fought primarily by young, poor men as well. The
military is concentrating its recruiting efforts on communities of color and
poverty where low education, bleak job opportunities, and misinformation
about military service fools young men into signing up to act as paid
mercenaries for an unjustified war.
Both Hitler and Bush have learned one thing: as long as you keep at least
part of the population poor and uneducated, you'll never run out of warm
bodies to send into enemy lines.
Both Adolf Hitler and Bush exercised near-total control over the domestic
Control of the German press was crucial to Hitler's political success during
his military campaigns. Today, the Bush Administration's control of the U.S.
press is equally important in bolstering support for an illegal war.
For both Hitler and Bush, the key to controlling the domestic media is
two-part. First, both leaders make sure that their populations never witness
the true, horrifying images of war. In Nazi Germany, this was to keep the
population unaware of the war atrocities taking place on the front lines
(and in the concentration camps). In Bush's war, the effort is to make sure
the American population never sees dead soldiers or "blown up" Iraqi women,
children and elderly. The Pentagon has even gone so far as to ban cell phone
cameras in Iraq and censor photos from Guantanamo bay, refusing to follow
the orders of a judge who ruled the photos be turned over as part of an ACLU
The second part of propaganda control is to make sure your own message is
the only message heard by the public. As President Bush said in his own
words on May 24, 2005 (I kid you not), "See, in my line of work, you got to
keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink
in... to kind of catapult the propaganda."
Hitler couldn't have said it better himself. (Although Hitler was too smart
to actually describe his own propaganda process in such blatant terms. Bush,
it seems, isn't even smart enough to keep his own propaganda tactics to
Both Nazi Germany citizens and modern Americans remain utterly ignorant of
the scale of atrocities committed by their armed forces
As a result of near-total control over the domestic press, the populations
of both Nazi Germany and modern America remain almost universally unaware of
the atrocities being committed by their military machines. Most Americans
still can't believe torture -- yes, actual torture -- took place at Gitmo,
under the supervision of U.S. military leaders. It's incredible naive, yes,
but then again most Americans also still believe war is a clean, surgical
operation with no missed targets, bloodied children, or missing limbs.
In Germany, as in present-day America, the people are hopelessly detached
from the reality of war. And that, of course, is by design (through control
of the press and the censorship of horrifying war images). People who are
detached from the war probably won't discover any good reason to get
outraged about it.
Both Nazi Germany and modern America treat their ideological opponents as
Under Hitler, Germany taught its citizens to look upon Jews and Soviets as
second-class citizens -- or even animals. Today, the U.S. paints its own
ideological enemies in a similar light. Hussein's capture was staged to give
the impression that he was living in a hole in the ground, for example.
We're told that terrorists live in caves, like cavemen, and to this day, I
still (unbelievably!) hear the term "sand-nigger" used to describe anyone
from the Middle East -- a term that reveals, better than anything else, the
abhorrent ignorance and racism of Republican Americans.
The U.S. bombing of Fallujah is very much like the U.S. firebombing of
Dresden in World War II
There's one more similarity among these two wars: the rampant destruction of
civilian infrastructure by U.S. forces. In Dresden, allied forces firebombed
a city into rubble, killing at least 250,000 people -- far more than died in
the atomic bomb explosions in Japan. It was a holocaust-scale event. Click
here to read more at Rense.com.
Over the last decade in Iraq, U.S.-led economic sanctions and air raids have
bombed various Iraqi cities (and infrastructure) into similar rubble,
causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, including
women and children.
What is Bush really up to here?
If Bush wants to compare World War II to today's war on Iraq, he'd better
brush up on history, because historical fact clearly shows the U.S. looks a
lot more like Nazi Germany than Roosevelt's allied forces.
So what's the real reason Bush is conjuring up images of World War II? It's
simple: it's a shameless marketing ploy to establish credibility via
association. Bush wants to borrow righteousness from a war he neither fought
nor understands, and use that to confuse the American people into blindly
supporting his imperialistic regime's effort to occupy and overthrow a
This effort is an outrageous insult to the men and women who sacrificed
their lives in World War II in order to save the world from a warmongering
madman bent on swallowing up entire countries in order to feed his own oil
refineries and bloated ego. I wonder: who will save the world from Bush?
The Bush family support of Nazi Germany
One last point here: as it turns out, the Bush family has a history of
cavorting with Nazis, especially when it comes to finances. Read this story
published in the Guardian if you're curious to learn more about the Bush /
As quoted in the story:
Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public
scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving
him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two
Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of
three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business
history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks
While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi
cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers
Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz
Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him
at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was
the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that
represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank
after America entered the war.
* Iraq is not World War II: Bush's comparison is an affront to WWII
veterans and shameless marketing for more war
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected
under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all
content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the
recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for educational and
commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice
from any licensed practitioner. It is not intended as a substitute for the
diagnosis, treatment or advice of a qualified professional. Truth Publishing
assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material.
More information about the Mb-civic