Kennedy says Iraq is ‘Bush’s Vietnam’. But, if Bush=Hitler, surely it’s his Eastern Front? That can’t be, of course, because Kabul was supposed to be America’s Stalingrad—as was, er, Baghdad. At least we can be sure that Abu Ghraib is Iraq’s My Lai—as long as it’s not true that September 11 2001 was the new September 11 1973 which would make Iraq the new Chile. This would mean that Saddam=Allende and Allawi=Pinochet. In which case, after the elections, we have to arrest Ayad Allawi next time he visits Britain.
18Jan05 — 7
Nice collection of allusions here (via Rob Hinkley’s excellent blog which should be on your links)
And I thought Iraq was Bush’s Waterloo! Well, you live and learn.
Sorry, I can’t get one of the links here to work – the one pointing to a source for Kennedy saying that Bush = Hitler. Can you post the URL please, if you have one?
Also, I think you’ve made a mistake – the article quoted doesn’t say that Kabul was America’s Stalingrad.
And another one: Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. If 9/11/01 = 9/11/73, then America = Chile (not Iraq) and Bush = Pinochet (not Allawi); this is in fact the parallel that the article linked to draws. Meaning that we should arrest Bush (not Allawi) the next time he visits Britain. Might not be a bad idea. Every head of government should spend a night in jail, a week in hospital, a month on benefits and a year in the army.
“Sorry, I can’t get one of the links here to work – the one pointing to a source for Kennedy saying that Bush = Hitler.”
Wrong Kennedy. JFK foretold (before his death at the hands of the CIA) that George W Bush would take the place of Hitler. That’s why they had to stage his “assassination”.
“Also, I think you’ve made a mistake – the article quoted doesn’t say that Kabul was America’s Stalingrad.”
The op-ed I wanted to link to appeared in The Guardian on the morning of the day that Kabul fell. This one, the best substitute I could come up with, admittedly just says: “This former army base next to the Bagram airfield 50 km north of Kabul is a tiny slice of Stalingrad, circa 1942.” The siege of Kabul was so quickly over that only the sharpest media commentators managed to get their analogies to the presses in time.
“Iraq had nothing to do with September 11.”
I think you’ll find that the invasion of Iraq was George W. Bush’s revenge for latter-day Robin Hood Osama bin Laden’s attempt to kill Bush’s father in the World Trade Center. Rumsfeld, the Darth Vader of the Bush Jnr administration, persuaded his boss (probably The Emperor) that Saddam and Osama were two sides of the same coin. Bush’s inevitable response was to launch his invasion of Poland.
“Every head of government should spend a night in jail, a week in hospital, a month on benefits and a year in the army.”
You forgot a decade as a monkey.
Since you bought the whole Blairite lie about the Iraq War as a
liberal cause, maybe you could blog a bit on the torture of Iraqis
by the British troops in Basra as reported in today’s press? Funny
isn’t it that it resembled so nicely what went on in Abu Ghrab?
Maybe you should take a look too at the Independent’s mag inside on
the British atrocities in Kenya in the 1950s. Its the same game,
you naive chump, its imperialism, and always dressed up to look pretty. Old Joseph Conrad was on the money when he wrote that ‘the conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking away of it from those with darker skins and slightly flatter noses than ourselves is
not a pretty business when you look into it too much”
Maybe its time you looked into it a little more, before you help
them sell another illegal war
Imperialism? Like we want the damn sandbox. Take a deep look into the kool-aid next time before you drain the cup.
[…] and invite you to add Streithorst’s clumsy attempt at drawing a historical parallel to my old collection This entry was written by PooterGeek, posted on 06Oct09 at 11:28, filed under Afghanistan, […]