licentious radio

Sunday, March 2, 2003
[11:31:58 AM]

Tony Blair should stop talking about appeasing Hitler. It's too close to the truth: Bush is not Hitler, but he's closer than Saddam. Look at the decline in civil liberties in this country. Look at the power of US military, and the stated (if often denied) intent of conquering many other countries after Iraq. Hitler took a democracy, and turned it to fascism and war. Saddam -- in 2003 -- is down and nearly out.

Bush is not Hitler. Hitler was a failed artist, not a failed businessman. Hitler's war was against other industrial powers. Bush's wars are against countries with little power now. The goal is to prevent countries from gaining power -- independence from Bush's will.

Bush is not Hitler. Hitler was *outside* the colonial system. Bush is the pinnacle of the various international financial institutions that keep poorer countries in line without the need for armies.

Bush is not Hitler. The excuse for much of Hitler's evil was a supposed conspiracy of Jews. The excuse for much of Bush's evil is a supposed conspiracy of Arabs/Muslims. We *know*, of course, that there are a few Arab/Muslim terrorists in the world. The good news is that out of six billion people on the planet, only a few hundred are Arab/Muslim terrorists out to provoke endless war. Even better, we know who they are, because they were on our payroll --or the Saudi's or the Pakistani's.

Bush is not Hitler. He's not likely to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of US citizens who are Arab/Muslim. Even now, relatively few Arabs/Muslims have been arrested, deported, or held without trial. But let's note that Hitler's worst atrocities didn't take place in 1934 or 1936. Bush had the Orwellian PATRIOT Act ready to push through Congress during the anthrax attacks. Now they have Son of PATRIOT Act ready to push through the next time they get a chance.

Bush is not Hitler. Bush can do untold damage to the world, just through incompetence and/or breaking treaties or refusing to support existing initiatives. Hitler didn't pull out of the Kyoto agreements. Hitler didn't impose right-wing-kook religious beliefs on international health agencies. Bush's blundering with respect to North Korea is entirely without precedent: he broke a situation that was stable, and provoked what may turn out to be a catastrophic proliferation of nuclear weapons, or even -- horror -- a war on the Korean peninsula.

Neither Saddam nor Bush is another Hitler. But, like Hitler, Bush must not be appeased. If allowed to conquer Iraq, he will clearly threaten other countries, which in turn will scramble for nuclear weapons to protect themselves from invasion. We should stand against Bush, and return the world to the relative peace and prosperity we experienced in the few brief years between Bush regimes.

[10:53:19 AM]
Gosh. If the Turkish *parliament* won't let our good friends in the Turkish executive branch let US soldiers attack northern Iraq, then Turkey will have to send its army into northern Iraq. Hmm. That's what Turkey wants to do anyway. Now why would they talk about not taking another vote on US troops?

As soon as US tanks enter Iraq, there's going to be a race to grab territory, especially territory on top of oil fields. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If the US Army is too scared/sane/small to occupy the north and disarm the factions, the factions *score*. Even if the US Army comes in forcefully, the factions are better off if they start out sitting on top of oil. The US will have to deal.

Bush's so-called diplomacy has been a disaster. It's no accident he can't get allies to go along with the war.

Even if you *want* to conquer Iraq for peace and democracy, it's time to face it: the disaster of Bush diplomacy will continue *after* the conquest. Rather than create widespread peace and democracy, the aftermath of the conquest will be widespread terrorism, the collapse of international order, and world-wide rejection of Bush hegemony. The price is too high.

The solution is to back off from conquest. Bush can save a little face with vigorous arms inspections. There will be political damage to Bush from his personal failure, but that damage will be less than the damage to the world of invading Iraq and continuing the pattern of failure.