Do you agree or disagree with the following, and why?

Question

"When you let people do whatever they want, you get Woodstock.
When you let governments do whatever they want, you get Auschwitz."
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/08/16/we-have-met-the-enemy-in-the-war-on-terror-and-he-is-us

Answer 1

Good question, Helga, and I fully agree with the spirit of the Woodstock anology, but only if you're talking about the 1969 one. I wasn't there, but I sure was around.

I was also around for the 1999 one, and in some ways it was Auschwitz. I think the time may have been ripening to bear rotten fruit like Bush even way back then.

We had Three Days of Peace and Love.

They had three days of Mosh-Pits and Slam Dancing.

We made a beautiful hand-painted mural.

They burnt someone's beautiful hand-painted mural.

Our bands were full of peace.

Many of their bands thirsted for blood.

And on and on.

As far as the farcical war on terror goes, I wrote a seven-hundred page book on that I'd never bore anyone with. But here is an answer I gave to someone else today who asked if I'd read the FOX-News Handbook on what to do in case of a terror attack.

Here is the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76887,00.html

Here's my response. I think it answers your question.
Peace and love.
**************************************************

I'd rather get my future news from The Jetsons, thank you. There's a chance some of it may accidentally be useful or relevant someday, or it may even come true.

My favorite paragraph from the FOX News Handbook sums it up best, and I quote:

"On Jan. 28, Bush announced that he will ask for $6 billion in his fiscal 2004 budget to launch "Project BioShield," a major research and production effort to make sure effective vaccines and treatments against bioterrorism agents are available."

Actually, President Bush first promised this on Sunday, Oct. 7, 2001, the same day we started attacking Afghanistan. He said it would be one or two billion dollars way back then, five years ago. We could expect it within two to six months.

President Bush first mentioned Project BioShield by name during the 2003 State of the Union address just before we started the war in Iraq. You may remember him saying this:

"Saddam Hussein is a cruel and ruthless dictator with a long history of violence. He has a pattern of inflicting terror on the weak, the poor, and on women and children. He is part of an axis of evil. He has thousands of tons of biological weapons stockpiled including anthrax, Ricin, smallpox, and Ebola Virus. Saddam Hussein poses a Clear and Present Danger to the United States. Saddam Hussein has the motive and the means and the recklessness and the hatred to threaten the American People. Saddam Hussein will be stopped."

For the first time, President Bush named Project BioShield by name. He said that we'd be given Cipron and other antiviral drugs and vaccines as soon as he could come up with six billion dollars.

President Bush was convinced that Saddam Hussein had these weapons and "he will not hesitate to use them against the American people by any means at his disposal."

This was forty-one months ago. We've spent at least $500 billion dollars on Iraq to date. But apparently, we can't come up with $6 billion dollars to protect the American people.

Or did we? Was my family's Cipron all lost in the mail, or was I on another list? How about you?

Six billion is less than $24 apiece for us. Apparently, Bush didn't think he was getting enough return on his investment.

Project BioShield. Or Project BS for short.
Call it what it is.

If Bush thought Hussein truly had these weapons and there was even the tiniest chance he'd use them on the American people or on our brave young soldiers, why was $24 apiece too expensive to protect us, if he's even the least bit serious about this so-called "War On Terror"?

If Bush didn't think that Hussein actually had any of these weapons of mass destruction, or that he'd hesitate to use them, then why did he lie to us? Why did he lie to the entire world?

And isn't this maybe just a little tiny bit worse than that "Blue Dress" thing? Just maybe a widdle itsy-bitsy teensy-weensy bit?

George Bush has the motive and the means and the recklessness and the hatred to threaten the American People. George Bush must be stopped and impeached.

Source(s):

Face it, FOX-News. It's not a Handbook.

It's an A$$book.

Answer 2

I disagree because the government is made up of people. Auschwitz could arguably be the result of following orders but ultimately people make decisions for themselves. So if the people who do whatever they want get Woodstock then there would never be an Auschwitz. Free will.

Answer 3

I don't agree.

It's an over generalization that misses the point of the human condition producing both things.

I could just as easilly validly say:

When you let people do whatever they want, you get riots and looting.
When you let governments do what they want, you get the United Nations.

Answer 4

Totally agree. Excellent article that goes with your question. Thanks so much for sharing that link. I especially liked these quotes: "Terrorists do not "hate us for our freedom." They hate our relentless meddling in the internal affairs of their nations. The problems of the Arab world are not America's to fix. So let us quit trying to fix them.

The people who have no problem with the advancing police state are many of the same people who so harshly criticized France for not joining America in invading Iraq in 2003. France had a terrorist problem at one point. And then they pulled out of Algeria.

The whole business brings to mind the comic strip character Pogo, who once remarked that "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Such is the case in the War on Terror. It is not "the terrorists" who want to take away our freedom. It is the United States government, aided and abetted by the ignorance and apathy of so many Americans who will gladly trade freedom for security. The German people did this 70 years ago, with grisly results. Let us pray that this does not happen in America. There is no guarantee that it can't.
Right on! Are we awake?! Are we aware? Are we paying attention to what is happening in our country????!!!!!!!!!

Answer 5

I would agree with that, but like many political gradients it is one dimensional. it does not take into account the actions of responsible people who do what they want, or the actions of responsible people under total government control. the above statement looks like it was concocted by a "moderate" who belives in a fair amount of government control and a fair amount of freedom, but does not take into account that total personal freedom and total government oversight are not necesarily opposite ends of he same gradient, but can also be used as labels for the X and Y axes of a graph.

My final answer is no, i do not agree with that statement.

Answer 6

Ronnie James Dio appears like this guy from my college - undecided weapons N' Roses only had one stable album - Disagree people who jerk off are not getting genuine subject - Disagree Eddie Murphy is particularly stressful - Disagree steel is the best sort - Agreed u . s . >>>> united kingdom - >>>>> NORWAY kin guy is the best teach of all time - Disagree college blows - Agreed Rap music is the worst sort of all time - Disagree (Emo is) Subway >>>>> McDonalds - Disagree Pepsi and Dr.Pepper are the best drinks of all time - Disagree Rosie O' Donnel appears like a guy - Agreed Angelina Jolie is the main well-liked lady to ever, and ever will stay - Disagree Weekends are the best - Agreed

Answer 7

That is definitely a good analogy. We have let our government do what they want far too long. Now we are looking at an emerging fascist police state, with no way of stopping it, short of an all out bloody revolution.

Answer 8

Having been at the original Woodstock, I vote for letting people do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Religion has to go, they are hurting people bad.

Answer 9

In a sense I agree, but I think that the Nazi reference is unnecessarily off-putting. We're too quick to compare everything to the holocaust, it's not a good tool because everyone's going to have a different emotional response and that could prevent them from fully getting the point.

It is true however, that giving people total freedom results in mostly harmless antics and a hell of a lot of good, and that people in power can never be trusted to keep that power in check themselves.

Answer 10

Hyperbole. But a nice analogy.

Like Jeopardy. Helga, I'll take Rabid Authoritarian Regimes for 100.