Let's get serious.....Is Ahmadinejad another Hitler?

[sirs]

"A U.S. senator compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler and made fun of his name on Tuesday during a congressional hearing on the U.S. strategy to end Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program," Reuters reports from Washington:

"Ahmadinejad--I call him Ahmad-in-a-head--I think he's a Hitler type of person," Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

"He has made it clear that he wants to destroy Israel. He has made it clear he doesn't believe in the Holocaust. He's a, he's a--we all know what he is," the senator added.

Hitler comparisons are almost always unenlightening, but this may be an exception, especially coming from someone so milquetoast that he once accused John Bolton of being insufficiently diplomatic. Ahmadinejad both has advocated and is seeking the means to bring about a Nazi-scale genocide of the Jews. If a Hitler comparison isn't apposite here, we don't know where it would be.

It's curious that Holocaust denial is considered Hitlerian, since Hitler himself believed in the Holocaust enough to make it his life's work. But of course Hitler engaged in a certain amount of misdirection. Here are some soothing passages from his May 21, 1935, speech to the Reichstag:

If present-day Germany stands for peace, it is neither because of weakness nor of cowardice. . . . The blood that has been spilt on the European continent in three hundred years stand in no proportion to the results obtained. . . . Every war means a drain of the best elements. . . . What could I wish but peace and quiet? If anyone says this is only the wish of leadership, I can reply, "the people themselves have never wished for war."

Compare with Ahmadinejad's interview yesterday with NBC's Brian Williams:

Williams: The president of the United States, speaking to the United Nations today, said to the people of Iran, "The United States respects you." But he said, "Your government is using resources to fund terrorists. And pursue nuclear weapons." He said he looks forward to the day when America and Iran can be good friends. And close partners in the cause of peace. How do you react to the statement of the American president today?

Ahmadinejad: We have the same desire, to be together for the cause of world peace. But we have to--see what the impediments are. Is it Iranian forces that have occupied countries neighboring the United States, or is it American forces that are occupying countries neighboring Iran? If Mr. Bush is saying that he can [unintelligible] the distance between the Iranian nation and the Iranian government, he is wrong. I am a normal person. A very average, regular person in Iran. The nation decided that I become the head of the state. The nation and the government are one and single. And together, we share everything. But we too like to rise at a point where we can pursue the cause of world peace.

Probably the strongest argument against the Hitler comparison is that Ahmadinejad, unlike Hitler, isn't an absolute dictator. By all accounts, the real power in Iran rests not with the formal head of state but with the "supreme leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Though we're not sure that makes us feel all that much better.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008969

[_JS]

No.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, not even close. Iran is not Germany. Iranians are not Germans. This is utter nonsense.

He attacks Israel to piss off the US, because it makes Komenei-the guy really in charge-happy, so he can pursue a large number of civic works projects in Iran. He is an engineer, and public works and development are his major concerns.

It adds to what Juniorbush would call his "political capital" with the Iranian people, who feel threatened with the US to the East and to the West of them, as well;l as with the Ayatollah who is the real head guy.

Of a one hour speech, he makes a three sentence comment on Israel, and the Israelis go ape. It is the nature of the Israelis to go ape. They are obsessed, and many have a strong sense of guilt for what they have done to the Palestinians.

[sirs]

Wow, we're all in agreement.  Go figure

[Michael Tee]

The poor guy can't win, can he?  When he rants and raves about destroying Israel, he's a Hitler.  When he softens up and talks peace, he's a Hitler.  This guy's only a Hitler because neo-con nutbars  say he's a Hitler, but why not make up a check-list and see how many points he gathers:

1.  Tortures and murders domestic political opponents?  Yes
2.  Tortures and murders foreign political opponents?  No.
3.  Tells his people they are a Master Race destined to rule over all of humanity?  No.
4.  Legislates Jews out of all professions and the military? No.
5.  Legislates against racial mixing? No.
6.  Claims to believe in international Jewish conspiracy?  Yes
7.  Rounds up all Jews for extermination?  No.
8.  Claims his country needs the land and resources currently occupied by its neighbours?  No.
9.  Takes or threatens to take land from neighbours to satisfy national needs?  No.
10.  Claims that his people living in neighbouring countries are oppressed and need rescue?  No.
11.  Believes that the Slavs and Blacks are "sub-humans?"  No.
12.  Mustache?  Yes.

Pretty low on the Hitler scale, IMHO.  It's funny, though, that on the first two questions, he'd score about the same as Bush, only with reversed answers.  No. 10 was kind of dicey because the Palestinians aren't his peple or his immediate neighbours, but I think he WOULD like to come to their rescue if he could.  And I think that if Bush were to be rated on the Hitler scale, No. 9 would have to be revised, because Bush's territorial ambitions are more global than Hitler's were at the time.

[sirs]

 

[hnumpah]