Germany 1942 [Archive] - Armageddon Online Forums

Propaganda

Dec 29th, 2004, 12:28 AM

stewey

Dec 29th, 2004, 12:53 AM

Comparing USA to Nazi Germany is just ignorant.

Get off your pedestal and come back down to earth you self-righteous imbecile.

Although your name is quite accurate, perhaps you are Michael Moore?

WasteLandWa|2rior

Dec 29th, 2004, 2:08 AM

Comparing USA to Nazi Germany is just ignorant.

Get off your pedestal and come back down to earth you self-righteous imbecile.

Although your name is quite accurate, perhaps you are Michael Moore?

Acctualy blowing what propoganda sayed off of your shoulders is ignorant...
there are some starteling similaritys not only between nazi germany and present day USA... but also many similarities between bush and hitler...
they both want globalization...
and they both used force to impose there will on other nations...
PROPAGANDA it is conforting to see that there are other people out there who see the big picture...
present day American patriotizim is very quickly evolving into Naziizim
Eg: if you dont agree with what the american government is doing you best keep your mouth shut. ( alot of germans who disagreed with hitlers ideals had to pretend to share his ideals or else be shot or arrested...)
these days in the states you are risking almost the same thing, minus the SHOT part...
however i wouldnt be suprized to hear about people being shot for disagreeing in the near future...
Bush claims that god is on the USA's side...
who is he to make suck an ASTOUNDING claim... even the pope... god didnt make the pope who he is... MAN put him in that position, so how could he claim to speek for god...?
we may see the muslim extremests as the enemy right now...
but just you wait and see what the states looks like in 4 years...
when bush is done with it...

substand

Dec 29th, 2004, 5:03 AM

I used to wonder how an entire country could have justified the mass killing of Jews. In fact I have seen the elderly of Germany, who lived there, try to explain it themselves. Their explanation was that they were more afraid of speaking out than the fear of their own conscience of what was happening.

At first I beleived you. More afraid of speaking out? Surely I can see that about Nazi germany. Less afraid of thier own conscienmce? I could see that too.

Today I live in a society that has invaded a country (just like the invasion of poland). And I look around and see my own friends who curse Muslims, just like they cursed the Jews. And many of whom are religious claiming to be patriotic. Strangely enough at the same time they preach of love and peace.

Didn't take me long to see through your "propaganda."

Just like invading poland? Are you fucking retarded or jaded? The Germans invaded the Rhineland before war happened, and we mostly look at this as a mistake in letting them do so. It has nothing to do with your jewish or muslim friends or cursing one or the other. My dad is Muslim and he wouldn't even think to compare the US of A to the Nazi regime of germany. And being a Muslim, he hates Jews! Religious claiming to be patriotic? The two have NOTHING to do with each other. I am religious. I am patriotic. But W is a fool if he thinks God told him to do this. It IS possible to be ((religious) or (patriotic)) or ((religious) and (patriotic)) (in the US).

Today I live in a modern nazi germany that uses Patriotism exactly how the nazis used it. Yet somehow many are so blind to it. The concentration camps found in cuba yield no similarities in their arrogant minds. Instead they sport yellow ribbons on their cars just like the swastika was sported on the sides of buildings (as well as cars).

A modern Germany? Yes, much more modern than 1940's Germany. We have A-Bombs now. Exactly how the nazi's use it? You are either a fool or a shill. Perhaps places like Auschwitz in 1941 yeild no similarities to Guantanimo in 2004 because there ARE VERY FEW. Like, prisoners are kept in both places. But in one, hey, lets put you in the oven, cook you, and eat you. In the other, lets do just about anything besides cook and eat you, and then lets ask you questions.

I can completely see how the two are similar. In fact, we have the same thing going on in the US right now. In fact, my favorite mosque has been shut down and everyone who was a member has been forced to put a yellow crescent and star on their clothes. After they did that, they were put on a train and sent over the ocean to cuba, where I have heard they were gassed to death with some biological toxin. In fact, my dad was one of them. He is dead and making a living working for an evil company and even bought me some christmas presents. I hope the Cubans send his body back.

I suppose my dad and I are just arrogant. My Muslim father who grew up in Muslimland and moved to the US (and stayed here against his government's wishes and against his "contract" with them) puts those yellow ribbons he has on the back of his car so that he can be pulled over by the muslimpolice and be taken into custody and sent to be executed. It has nothing to do with the fact that he might appreciate the freedom he has in the US. It has nothing to do with the fact that he might think Iraq is better off without constant Saddamization. He just wants to be gassed and die.

Terrorists are just like gangs in urban society, they drive by and they kill. Of course they dont use a bomb, but if we rack up the statistics we will find that gang violence since the early nineties is far worse than september 11. The differencee is location. If those planes would have crashed into any other place with less expensive real estate than Manhattan, that day would have already been forgotten.

Are terrorists like "gangs in modern society?" Where is it shown that gangs want political change? of course, terrorist do by definition. I would be surprised to learn that gangs want it to legalize thier businesses... since that would PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. But maybe deaths attributed to gang violence are more prolific during the entire 1990s than 9/11 was. The more I look at your post the more I think you an idiot vs a shill. You are expecting me to think than 10 years of gang violence is somehow comparable to 1 day of terrorist violence? I'd be willing to bet that more people died in accidental drowings during the entire decade than died on september 11, 2001. Does that make the date any less relevant?

And you are still excluding all terrorist killings befiore, 9/11. As uf there was no such thing as a terrorist before then.

I have learned more about nazi germany since september 11 than I could ever have expected.

I'm glad you've been reading up on WW2 and nazism. Perhaps you should read a thing or two about Muslims. And once you've finished that, you might want to read about Islamist jihadist terrorism. And then you might be able to tell me how sending those who are fighting for the destruction of your family's life to prison to be questioned is equivalent to sending those who happen to beleive the Torah is our Holy book to prison to be gassed and killed.

I never been to church, but after this last election, I think I have come to realize that armageddon has begun, as even the most religious bow before Bush out of fear of terrorism and relinquish thier own religious beliefs against war as he makes great promises of peace. None of them realize, that with the new homeland security bill, that they may have been tricked into taking his mark and placing it onto their foreheads where the devil has instilled his fear. The greatest illusion as promised, I guess. Soon they wont be able to buy or sell without it. As the locust infestation spreads across the earth(as promised), and the droughts linger, God has returned and spoken his first word, and that word is Tsunami. Soon after it appears to be pestilence.

Yes! Yes yes yes! Let me tell you how, not only have I bowed before Bush, he has personally laid his hand upon my forehead and given me the sign! I have this strange tatoo on my forehead ever since I called for the dethroning of Saddam.

I am strangely amused of the irony. Armageddon isnt brought by Jesus. Armageddon is brought by the fools who so arrogantly claim to be God's children.

Amused? No, I suppose armageddon isn't brought by Jesus. It is brought by the fools who so arrogantly claim they are you. There is a mcworldish war being fought currently. Armageddon may or may not be a consequence of it. But "gods children" certainly wont prolong it as much as your ignorant ass will. It is people like you who neither know nor understand muslim or christian or jew or any of their secular nationalist counterparts who will prolong the war. Its certainly not the nazis you speak of. You and others ignorant fucks like you are the only nazis in the equation.

substand

Dec 29th, 2004, 5:10 AM

present day American patriotizim is very quickly evolving into Naziizim
Eg: if you dont agree with what the american government is doing you best keep your mouth shut. ( alot of germans who disagreed with hitlers ideals had to pretend to share his ideals or else be shot or arrested...)

Yes, let me tell you how often I, as an American, shoot everyone I disagree with. Hell, I don't agree with Dubya all the time and he shot me a few times... well he only shot AT me once, but it was with a shotgun, so it spread and HIT me a few times. After that, I fell into line and now I am only arrested everytime I disagree with him and his cronies.

Mattlad75

Dec 29th, 2004, 5:53 AM

Bush and Bin Laden are both fundamentalists, Bush the Christian Fundamentalist and Bin Laden the Muslim one. Both are blind to anything which is outside their sphere of view with regards to their religion. I believe though that Bin Laden and co are more worldly aware of how the world functions ie the people who are suffering, the poor and needy He does not really care about these people but uses their plight to help his cause. George W for instance had never been outside The USA before taking the presidents office. Bush is not very aware of what the rest of the world is doing or does, as long as he goes forth with his beautiful vision bestode to him by the church and his upbringing.

Both are Blind
Both are willing to kill to try and gain the upperhand
Both are truely not what the world needs right now

Walls are going up, don't fall into the trap of hate that is a form of brainwashing used by both sides. The few are influencing the many. The USA has taken many liberties that they say are needed and will help reduce terrorism, the 'Patriot act' for example.
don't be brainwashed into thinking that this is going to help in the long term. Governments are using the fear of hate to bring about change that they are using to their advantage.
Be aware and be wise.
Have your own views and don't always be influenced by others. i guess if you are on this site then that means you have questioned alot, great, shame that so many others do not and go along with whatever they are told and are given. Like in Nazi Germany of the 1940s. Did people question enough then? or did they just go with the flow?

substand

Dec 29th, 2004, 6:40 AM

Bush and Bin Laden are both fundamentalists, Bush the Christian Fundamentalist and Bin Laden the Muslim one.

Do you DARE even compare Bush to looney tunes bin Laden? Bush did not even wish a Merry Christmas, but instead said "happy holidays" to the American people... how "Christian Fundamentalist" is that?

I believe though that Bin Laden and co are more worldly aware of how the world functions ie the people who are suffering, the poor and needy He does not really care about these people but uses their plight to help his cause.

Good then. Lets all praise bin Looney for his empathy for the poor and suffering and his abuse of the downtrodden. Bush's empathy for the people living under a complete and utter tyrant (by the modern definition of the word) was simply his quest to steal oil for Cheney's Halliburton so they could overcharge for their services and be caught and be investigated by Bush et al so Bush could look bad. I like your theory, it makes perfect sense.

George W for instance had never been outside The USA before taking the presidents office. Bush is not very aware of what the rest of the world is doing or does, as long as he goes forth with his beautiful vision bestode to him by the church and his upbringing.

WTF does that matter? I've only been outside the US a couple of times that I remember, and both times were bordertown visits to Mexico. Does that mean that everthing I've learned through study of other places is irrelevant? If so, then STFU because you don't and can't know shit from shinola. I'm willing to bet my male copulatory organ that Bush knows more than you do about "what the world is doing." GTFO and STFU about matters you are more ignorant about that a complete and uttter idiot like Bush.

Both are Blind
Both are willing to kill to try and gain the upperhand
Both are truely not what the world needs right now

Are you such a fucktard that you see not the difference of bin Laden's killings and Bush's? Do I need to explain it to you? Even the most lefthanded leftist on this board can see the difference. If not, at least they PRETEND to, so as not to cast suspicion on what would be their idiocy for beleiving that Bush and bin Laden are equivalent.

The USA has taken many liberties that they say are needed and will help reduce terrorism, the 'Patriot act' for example.

Do you even know what "liberites" were "taken" from you to "reduce terrorism" in the "Patriot act," or do you just ignorantly cite it? Are you aware of which parts of the original act, or the modified version, that civil libertarians disagree with? Has your life and the things you do significantly changed since it was enacted?

Skippy

Dec 29th, 2004, 7:41 AM

Good Golly! Such fervour. :)

Comparing the current US administration with the Nazi administration is not all that far a stretch of the imagination. There are quite a few similarities, however, the American public will always be blinded by the well marketed Holocaust industry into never seeing the Second World War for what it was.

The war actually started in September of 1939, and the US did not actively become involved until after Pearl Harbour in 1942. In fact, few Americans realise that 90% of the German soldiers killed in that war died at the hands of the Russians. The war was never about saving the Jews from the ovens, and in fact, it was not general knowledge until they began liberating the camps in late 44/45. The fact is, most of the German people knew about relocation, but did not know about extermination. But right up until the end, as the Allied soldiers were knocking down the door, people still clung to their patriotic German national pride.

Hitler used a terrorist attack against the Reichstag to seize all kinds of powers into the executive. That was in 1933, and it wasn't until years later that the full effect of those powers was realised by the German people. But it was only the dissidents who had cause to be concerned as the loyal and patriotic Germans had no reason to fear the State. But Caesar used the threat of terrorism as an excuse for the invasion of Gaul 2000 years earlier.

It was appeasement that allowed the Germans to militarize the Rhineland (not invade it). Much the same way as appeasement is allowing the US to invade Iraq and wreak terror on its citizens. Eventually a lign will be drawn, as it was with Germany, and should the US cross the line, global war is likely, as it happened when Germany staged their invasion of Poland.

There are many similarities between Nazi Germany and the US today. It will always be offensive to Americans to suggest that because their perception of WW2 is always in context of the holocaust. While their are similarities between treatment of the Jews by Nazis, and treatment of the Muslims by Americans, there are differences, and sufficient to preclude them from being equated. It is in the political administration that the similarities are strongest, but then this occurs throughout history, and it is more a formula that is being followed than a replication of one specific epoch.

So for an American to suggest that there are similarities between the Nazi political administration and the current US administration, while in essence quite true, is not ever going to be well received by uneducated and dense Americans who are genetically engineered to never admit that they could be wrong.

WasteLandWa|2rior

Dec 29th, 2004, 12:08 PM

Well, I’m certain that you think you know about terrorism, but you apparently don’t know as it is clearly evidenced by your complete lack of historical inclusion. Shall I point out the failures of your intended point? Nah….Just look above.

The opening line shows the apparent lack of understanding and may explain oh so much about your approach to life in general. You can’t accept that there are horrible individuals intent on contributing as much violence and despicable acts against humanity in the name of their chosen religion, and yet you turn to the very catalyst—that is responsible for those very acts and all the horrid acts committed throughout history—for redemption and guidance…that is so disgusting it is beyond words. Apparently, you’re a hypocrite (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrite).

No one bows before Bush. Jesus fuq’n Christ. If anything, they may bow to the position held, not the man. :ohmy: You just don’t get it…they are willing to wage war on a group of ppl intent on destroying AMERICA because of the freedom AMERICA and AMERICAn’s enjoy. Why allow a malignant tumor to grow larger and create more harm to the well being of the world in general?

Yes, the PA does create certain boundary issues and does impose on a few previously enjoyed yet seldom exercised rights, but have any of us freedom enjoying, law abiding individuals been hindered or infringed upon? No. So, STFU already.

Moreover, you now proclaim the existence of a devil, but you don’t go to church and you further proclaim that God is responsible for the modern Nazi Germany that is apparently occurring in AMERICA…so why are you blaming Bush and the AMERICAn patriots for something that is alleged by you to be divinely inspired?

Which is it?

Focus. Can you?

The freaks come out every time a major disaster occurs, the freaks (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=58462&postcount=42) have been stating it’s the end of the world (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=58108&postcount=3) since every major disaster. Whatthefuqever.

Ppl said the same thing about SS#’s , checking accounts/debit cards, credit cards...etc. Yeah…it’s all bullshit…don’t you get that?

Your entire argument is weak and lacks even the most basic of support. I’m none too surprised though.

The jews are trying to instigate the second coming? HAHAHAHA! It would appear that you are the epitome of the hatred you previously accused AMERICA of harboring.

Racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism) is not tolerated by AO, plus it makes baby jesus cry.

What makes you so certain that Christ was the one true son of an alleged god? Christianity..muslims…they are all believers in a make believe fantasy based on pagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism) foundations. Congratulations on being outed as an apparent hater, which you have willfully promoted yourself as being. I bet your god is all the more fond of you for such. It is amazing that you can’t see your shortcomings, and I am amused by your failure; and I am made that much more superior as a result. I am so great (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=1635).

The only thing that will happen slowly is the methodical removal of your kind from a country that cherishes freedom and sacrifices it’s brave soldiers to instill and preserve freedom in other countries that have lived under the shadow of oppression for too long.

The only thing that will whittle to dust is the hatred and bigotry that you disguise as enlightenment and sell to ppl in the hopes of gaining support for your obvious sham. You claim that AMERICA is a modern Nazi regime, yet you condemn and stereotype with the despicable arrogance that only inexperience and a lack of education creates. This speaks volumes of your apparent lack of morals and apparent disregard for your fellow humans.

The only way peace will be experienced is with the removal of terrorism and the eradication of the perverted mentality you willfully perpetrate on the humans of my planet.

You promote racial bias, religious tyranny (is there any other kind), and moral ineptitude. You should be more concerned with what the public would do to you, if they ever put a name/face to the apparent hate speech and intolerance of freedom, which you so willfully post.

Judgeing buy the tone of your last 2 posts it would appear that you are the hater...
propaganda makes some statements (like we all do) and you just feel the need to shoot him out of the sky... so what if you dissagree with him... no need to call him a fucking idiot... your the hater buddy... and its people like you that the world needs too look out for... (people like me too)
and the swastica dose not represent DESTRUCTION AND DEATH... man has only interperted it like that...
truth is ... the swastica was around a long time before nazi germany... it means UNITY....

stewey

Dec 29th, 2004, 1:37 PM

substand, you said it best.

Some people like to think they are oppressed (read Rage Against the Machine's lyrics). GWB is far from Hitler, and he will not be president in 4 years due to the two term limit. He was ELECTED, and we have freedom of speech here.

WasteLandWa|2rior

Dec 30th, 2004, 1:44 AM

prezhorusin04

Dec 30th, 2004, 2:35 AM

Well, we supposedly have Freedom of Speech here. But sometimes if you try to speak your mind, they put you behind a little caged in fence, and stand in front of you decked out in their Darth Vader riot gear...

And, there is still alot of evidence to support the fact that Bush stole ANOTHER election in 2004..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/prezhorusin04/littlebush2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/prezhorusin04/littlebush.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/prezhorusin04/Nazibush.gif

stewey

Dec 30th, 2004, 12:44 PM

"Free speech zone" was pretty stupid, I agree. However, that was the Democrats, not republicans

Brandon101

Jan 5th, 2005, 1:36 AM

Comparing Bush to Hitler is a bit of a stretch. We're not making lampshades out of muslim skin or conducting sick medical experiments on them. I don't recall ever having to hold my hand out and scream seig heil either. Does Bush want Hitler's powers? Hell yes. If he was in office more than four more years would he have them? Absolutely. But that can't happen unless something totally fucked up gets through congress, which it won't. Besides, somebody would ummm 'deal with' the bastard before that could happen.

dutchie

Jan 5th, 2005, 7:48 AM

Skippy

Jan 5th, 2005, 9:06 AM

Wow, I can not believe I never saw this thread until now....

OK, as much as I dislike Bush and his fantasies on WMD and establishing a democracy in an Arab muslim state, I strongly oppose to comparing him to Hitler or the USA to the Nazi empire. That is an absurd notion. Comparing Hitler to Attila the hun would be much more realistic.

Dutchie, I do find it interesting that you would have this view, I wonder if your parents and grandparents would share it. One thing I have found is that he people who make that comparison the most are those who lived under the Nazi yoke, or are children of people who did.

Not sure if you are from South Holland all your life, but I do know that you are taught history about Germany in the 1930s more so than North Americans are. But I also understand how the Dutch people and the German people were able to move past the war and get along very well. But next time you are up in Rotterdam, remember that it was flattened by the Germans as a punishment for resistance much the same way as Fallujah has suffered the same fate.

As I posted above, there are some striking similarities between pre-war Nazi Germany and America today. I'm talking about the political stuff, not the Holocaust stuff. And, as much as it is very unpalatable to make the comparison, it can be made just as easily as the comparisons with Rome.

DontBeAfraid

Jan 5th, 2005, 10:06 AM

You really know very little about the US education system skippy so it would be wise of you to limit yourself to making only inquiries about it and leave your statements for a future date..... You also know very little about whats going on in Fallujah if you think that what is going on is equatable to what the nazi's did ANYWHERE!

dutchie

Jan 5th, 2005, 10:59 AM

Not sure if you are from South Holland all your life, but I do know that you are taught history about Germany in the 1930s more so than North Americans are. But I also understand how the Dutch people and the German people were able to move past the war and get along very well. But next time you are up in Rotterdam, remember that it was flattened by the Germans as a punishment for resistance much the same way as Fallujah has suffered the same fate.

As I posted above, there are some striking similarities between pre-war Nazi Germany and America today. I'm talking about the political stuff, not the Holocaust stuff. And, as much as it is very unpalatable to make the comparison, it can be made just as easily as the comparisons with Rome.
Not sure what you mean by "South Holland".. You mean the region, or the province? I was born in the city of Leiden, and lived there for all of my life. Not sure what that has got to do with the issue at hand, though. Yes I was taught history on the Germans, and my ancestry (from mother's side) was even jewish, so I've had my share of Nazi reign, thank you.

You might find striking similarities between pre-war Germany and the USA of GWB, but I could just as easily name striking differences. As much as I loathe what happened to Fallujah, it's not the same thing as the Rotterdam bombing.
The heart of the city was entirely wiped out and flattened, there wasn't a soldier in sight. The raid on Fallujah was carried out to drive out insurgents from that city, the flattening of Rotterdam was just showing off Jerry muscle and meant to force the Netherlands into swift capitulation.

Skippy

Jan 5th, 2005, 11:40 AM

Not sure what you mean by "South Holland".. You mean the region, or the province? I was born in the city of Leiden, and lived there for all of my life. Not sure what that has got to do with the issue at hand, though.

Both? I can't find my map of the Netherlands, but if memory serves me correctly, you are in that Province, no? I was asking to clarify that you are a native Nederlander. (Hoi!)

Yes I was taught history on the Germans, and my ancestry (from mother's side) was even jewish, so I've had my share of Nazi reign, thank you.

That was my point. I know how much you are educated on this epoch.

You might find striking similarities between pre-war Germany and the USA of GWB, but I could just as easily name striking differences.

I think that would be a good start, perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing your perceived differences. Bearing in mind that Dubya still has another four years.

As much as I loathe what happened to Fallujah, it's not the same thing as the Rotterdam bombing. The heart of the city was entirely wiped out and flattened, there wasn't a soldier in sight. The raid on Fallujah was carried out to drive out insurgents from that city, the flattening of Rotterdam was just showing off Jerry muscle and meant to force the Netherlands into swift capitulation.

Let us go back further in time to when the contractors were killed and the first attack on Fallujah. I certainly don't think that the US could ever get away with what Jerry did to Rotterdam, or what the Brits did to Hamburg today, but both were a show of force, both were indiscriminate, and both destroyed a city. Certainly differences exist, but in the mean, too many similarities. In fact, perhaps I could find a better example than Rotterdam, Stalingrad comes to mind, but I'd have to look into it further.

Skippy

Jan 5th, 2005, 11:46 AM

You really know very little about the US education system skippy so it would be wise of you to limit yourself to making only inquiries about it and leave your statements for a future date.....

Obviously if you are a product of it then it can't be good because I wrote North America. And if you want to start an off topic debate on the US education system, and you want me to fill it with facts and figures, then start a new thread. We can ever begin with the recent math scores where the US tanked out completely.

You also know very little about whats going on in Fallujah if you think that what is going on is equatable to what the nazi's did ANYWHERE!

Oh? and you have the inside track showing both sides? Let's see, the Germans didn't intentionally bomb hospitals so you are right, the Americans are worse.

dutchie

Jan 6th, 2005, 2:17 AM

Both? I can't find my map of the Netherlands, but if memory serves me correctly, you are in that Province, no? I was asking to clarify that you are a native Nederlander. (Hoi!)So, you're of Dutch ancestry too?!? Not surprising, a lot of Dutchies went to Canada in the 1950ies.. Mostly farmers and engineers.. What was your family into?
BTW the province is called Zuid Holland (which of course translates into South Holland, but with that we usually refer to Brabant and Limburg, the southernmost provinces).

I think that would be a good start, perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing your perceived differences. Bearing in mind that Dubya still has another four years.
The rise of the Hitler regime doesn't resemble the history of GWB's presidency in the least. While both may be ur-conservatives, their political aims and ideas differ vastly. GWB shows off American muscle and re-establishes the US superpower image, Hitler was just driven by ultra-nationalism, racism and last but not least deep lunacy. A big part of GWB's motivation stems from his fundy christian faith, Hitler only had a fondness of Teutonic mythology and was not very religious at all. GWB is an American, Hitler was a foreigner (from Austria) although this is somewhat lame... GWB did not invade Iraq to annexate, like Hitler did Poland and Czechoslovakia. GWB does not seek to wipe out all Arabs or muslims, like Hitler did want to do to the jews.

Throughout history wars have been fought. Any war can be compared to another war in the sense that genocide is committed, atrocities and torture are common practice in all conflicts, and the reasons to fight anyway are usually all wrong. War (IMO) is really never justifiable, because there will always be too many innocent victims. It's always easy to compare conflicts and leaders, while in fact they have nothing to do with eachother. Now don't get me wrong - I am AGAINST this war, as I would be against ANY war. War is always the chessgame of the mighty and pityless, sacrificing the powerless, poor and innocent for their own political (read: power and money) purposes.

Let us go back further in time to when the contractors were killed and the first attack on Fallujah. I certainly don't think that the US could ever get away with what Jerry did to Rotterdam, or what the Brits did to Hamburg today, but both were a show of force, both were indiscriminate, and both destroyed a city. Certainly differences exist, but in the mean, too many similarities. In fact, perhaps I could find a better example than Rotterdam, Stalingrad comes to mind, but I'd have to look into it further.
In the WW2 conflict, ALL the allies fought a just war against one agressor (let's leave Japan out of this argument for the sake of clarity), an agressor that had absolutely NO justification for its acts at all (which is not to say I think that GWB did have MUCH justification in what he did to Fellujah, especially to the innocent portion of its inhabitants, which of course is the overall majority - but the initial idea WAS to root out insurgency.). The Rotterdam bombing indeed is way off what happened in Fallujah, and yes - Stalingrad is a better comparison in terms of net results and MO, however - all other comparisons fail again.

In short, I don't see any USE at all in comparing conflicts. Comparing Bush to Hitler is just one method of demonizing, and it's not the best if that is the game you're into. Judge someone by HIS actions, not by making a bad comparison to those of others before him.

substand

Jan 6th, 2005, 3:20 AM

Even the most lefthanded leftist on this board can see the difference. If not, at least they PRETEND to, so as not to cast suspicion on what would be their idiocy for beleiving that Bush and bin Laden are equivalent.

Comparing the current US administration with the Nazi administration is not all that far a stretch of the imagination.

Do I need to retract my words? Lets continue and see. I must admit, I'm reading each part in an almost ad hoc way, but not so much that i can't respond to any of it. So how far of a stretch is it?

There are quite a few similarities, however, the American public will always be blinded by the well marketed Holocaust industry into never seeing the Second World War for what it was.

Well marketed? How so? Because the way I read it, thats SICK. Well marketed. Yummy, let me buy the Jewham. What was the 2nd world war?

The war actually started in September of 1939, and the US did not actively become involved until after Pearl Harbour in 1942.

Is this news? Did Canadia ever become involved? OF COURSE THEY DID! And right after that, they left it up to the US to build some sort of defense against the Soviets... sorry, OT. I apologize.

In fact, few Americans realise that 90% of the German soldiers killed in that war died at the hands of the Russians.

What does it matter how many germans died or russians? Russia played more of a role than it would have liked, but as it all turns out, us free nations benefited. Germany was retarded in the sense that it went for a russian winter. And russia helped. And thank god for it. But what does 90% of germans being killed by russians have to do with the US being comparable to Nazi Germany?

The war was never about saving the Jews from the ovens, and in fact, it was not general knowledge until they began liberating the camps in late 44/45.

First off, who cares about the original justification for war 60+ yrs ago, especially since the result was good. In fact, IMO, Germany should have been squashed before WW2 took place, because it was breaking the rules of ceasefire of the first WW. But we never took heed, and in our blind desire for peace, caused a much bigger war than was needed. Imagine if just one country had decided not to appease Germany. Would there have been a WW2? Of course not. Germany would never have been able to build a military capable of fighting.

The fact is, most of the German people knew about relocation, but did not know about extermination.

Just like the majority of americans know about imprisonment of enemy combantants and know they are not being cooked in ovens to be used for umbrellas?

But right up until the end, as the Allied soldiers were knocking down the door, people still clung to their patriotic German national pride.

And this is similar because americans cling to american national pride. this is your similarity? you ignore iraq's support for terrorism and its breaking of cease fire agreements? If this is comparable, it is mostly because we did not allow iraq the same opportunity we afforded germany prior to ww2, thus avoiding a much larger war than was neccesary.

Hitler used a terrorist attack against the Reichstag to seize all kinds of powers into the executive. That was in 1933, and it wasn't until years later that the full effect of those powers was realised by the German people. But it was only the dissidents who had cause to be concerned as the loyal and patriotic Germans had no reason to fear the State. But Caesar used the threat of terrorism as an excuse for the invasion of Gaul 2000 years earlier.
And it is clear that the US has voted dubya in as our führer (in the nazi sense of the term).

It was appeasement that allowed the Germans to militarize the Rhineland (not invade it). Much the same way as appeasement is allowing the US to invade Iraq and wreak terror on its citizens. Eventually a lign will be drawn, as it was with Germany, and should the US cross the line, global war is likely, as it happened when Germany staged their invasion of Poland.

It was appeasment that would have allowed Saddam to continue to Saddamize Iraq and thumb his nose at the rest of the world. It was his refusal to abide by the terms of cease fire agreed upon during Bush 41 and throughout the several years that followed that led to the current war. In fact, the same scenario you describe was not caused by the US, but by Saddam. And you can say what you will about WMD, but you cannot say he wasn't in violation of the umpteen BINDING UNSC resolutions. And in doing so, you cannot help but compare him to Germany just prior to WW2. And I would welcome your "comments" as to how Dubya's US was more like Germany than Saddam was, prior to the current US involvement in Iraq.

There are many similarities between Nazi Germany and the US today.

Yes there are, but you have yet to name a relevant one... as in the evil nazi US vs the evil nazi Germany.

It will always be offensive to Americans to suggest that because their perception of WW2 is always in context of the holocaust.

1) its not just offensive to Americans.
2) WW2 is well seen in the context of the holocaust. Jews were certainly not the catalyst of the whole situation, but they were certainly well affected by it. In the end, Germany killed millions upon millions of people. They targeted within their own population more than anyone, Jews. But they killed many more. They killed Christians and Muslims too. They killed many times more russians than Jews. They killed Russian Jews. Russians killed more russians that germans killed.
3) It is not just offensive to Americans
4) It is not just offensive to Americans
5) It is not just offensive to Americans
6) Oh yeah, It is not just offensive to Americans
7) perhaps this is because there are no relevant (to what you are talking about) similarities

While their are similarities between treatment of the Jews by Nazis, and treatment of the Muslims by Americans, there are differences, and sufficient to preclude them from being equated.

you are right. nazi germany made lampshades out of jews. the US plays rock music loudly to Muslims Islamist Jihadists that were caught in the battlefield. We even allow muslims to have mosques here and worship in the US. We play rock music loudly to "torture" enemies found in the act of fighting us into giving us information. Nazi Germany made crayons out of jews just because they were jews.

I'm definitely not seeing the similarity here. You know, germany was indescriminate about killing jews in their country. You Jew, You die. I still see muslims living free lives here in the US, and those at gitmo were captured fighting against us.

is not ever going to be well received by uneducated and dense Americans who are genetically engineered to never admit that they could be wrong.

I'm not sure wtf you are getting at. First there are quite a few then there seem to be very few. Perhaps it is not well received because there are not many similarities. I am certainly an uneducated dense American who doesn't receive comparisons to Nazi germany very well. I'm a halfrican. I'm Sammy ibn Khaled al-Arbi. I don't know that I'm genetically engineered. Of course, I'm not sure anyone is.

substand

Jan 6th, 2005, 3:22 AM

"Free speech zone" was pretty stupid, I agree. However, that was the Democrats, not republicans

My first experience with it was with John Kerry (and thus, dems) but as far as I have read, republicans are just as guilty in this regard.

substand

Jan 6th, 2005, 3:35 AM

Let us go back further in time to when the contractors were killed and the first attack on Fallujah. I certainly don't think that the US could ever get away with what Jerry did to Rotterdam, or what the Brits did to Hamburg today, but both were a show of force, both were indiscriminate, and both destroyed a city. Certainly differences exist, but in the mean, too many similarities. In fact, perhaps I could find a better example than Rotterdam, Stalingrad comes to mind, but I'd have to look into it further.

And Falluja still stands, and the US so kindly asked all civilians to leave. And that heppened where?

Even the most lefthanded leftist on this board can see the difference. If not, at least they PRETEND to, so as not to cast suspicion on what would be their idiocy for beleiving that Bush and bin Laden are equivalent.

I suppose i may have been wrong there.

dutchie

Jan 6th, 2005, 3:42 AM

Ahem, ahem...?!?

Bigsky770

Jan 6th, 2005, 4:43 AM

. . .How many times I am reminded by such well-meaning individuals that this is a war ALL ABOUT OIL, (numerous) yes, it was amazing to see just how wonderfully well our own "Blitzkrieg" of Mexico was handled, and by our forcing to the knees the government [of] Mexico we now possess the total oil reserves of this nation and have deposed their president Vicente Fox Quesada;
. . .And as well, we handled the 'propaganda' so well in demonizing Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay, all of the testimony of the victims (given to the Congress and the Senate of these United States), about these three was contrived (in that they were murderers and rapists) and as well hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people were never actually murdered and put into mass-burial pits, it is as a visual hallucination [just as] the Jewish Holocaust was during WWII, we simply made all of this up. . .
. . .During the whole of the Clinton Administration, we never ACTUALLY brought forward the charges against the then Iraqi Gov't of Saddam Hussein [to the number] of 17 times to that politically impotent organization of the "United Nations", Yes indeedy, I am certain also that Adolf Hitler had approached them THEN known as the "League of Nations" about his intended actions in Poland, the U.S.S.R., etc. etc. so-on. . .This was a well-organized campaign of slander against so honourable a man [as] Saddam, and as well we had 'done the job' of painting Kofi Annan as a criminal mastermind who was shuttling finances to his son to the tune of BILLIONS through this stroke of genius of a plan known as "The Oil-For-Food-Scandal", this is why our gov't is now able to run in the 'black' as opposed to the 'red' in this war to right so-many wrongs. . .[our DEBT is actually non-existant/hell, we're just lying]. . .Hah!
. . .We have well-painted ourselves as the 'victims' in this in our forward of the idea that we could not KNOW that the only reason the U.N. was dragging their feet in this matter was that there was so-much money to be made by "Kofi & Company" [France]. . .Lovely fantasies all. . .

Anyone [I]NOTICE the sardonic unrealities of the aforementioned post? (or) are you a woo-woo?:D

Jebus, Skippy. . .*YOU* are SO FUQIN' CORRECT; The 'similarities' are STRIKING! (psyche!....)

Joe (Bigsky770) :crtmn:

2cool4stats

Jan 6th, 2005, 4:50 AM

I won't jump to conclusions. However, there might be a lot more going on behind closed doors. It is merely guesswork for the public to make a proper and accurate justification on these issues. A person cannot simply rely on trust or paranoia to formulate a judgement upon a particular thing. So yes, it is unfair to liken Bush to Hitler. At the same time, it is equally unfair to dismiss the possibility that Bush and Hitler share similar ambitions.

Keep in mind though, that when a person never ceases to question the authority of his country he is showing patriotism in its highest linguistic form. His undying eagerness to consider the potential errors, vulnerabilities, and saboteurs of his nation clearly proves his loyalty. Even if by chance that he is found incorrect on his suspicions [concerns], he cannot be ashamed of his intentions towards his nation. On the other hand, a person who defensively closes the door to such potential dangers within his nation is subjecting himself to the possibility of unknowingly aiding in his country's demise.

That applies to any nation and not just the United States.

Bigsky770

Jan 6th, 2005, 5:25 AM

. . .Save for 2 very important points;

1. The mere fact of the banter that we can exercise here is the best indicator of the FREEDOM we enjoy and do DAILY, May it ALWAYS CONTINUE! :D (to Hitler, THIS medium we enjoy would be as "UNTHINKABLE!")

2. It is that we are THAT AWARE of our past "World History" which is our best insurance that we will NOT be condemned to REPEAT it. Those that forget. . .well.... :nono:

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

substand

Jan 6th, 2005, 10:59 AM

Ahem, ahem...?!?

No, definitely not in your case (if thats referring to what I see it as referring to)...

Skippy

Jan 6th, 2005, 6:40 PM

Gee Joe, I'm gonna have to get me a set of those glasses you are wearing since my custom Ray Bans just aren't dark enough to blind me as much as yours do you.

.And as well, we handled the 'propaganda' so well in demonizing Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay, all of the testimony of the victims (given to the Congress and the Senate of these United States), about these three was contrived (in that they were murderers and rapists)

And of course none of that happened while Saddam was a client ally of the US, nor were any of the chemical weapons used by Iraq against Iran sold to Iraq by the US.

and as well hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people were never actually murdered and put into mass-burial pits,

You mean like the mass burial pits in Afghanistan filled with container people? If you blame Northern Alliance, then don't forget that the Ukranians did a lot of the dirty work for the Germans.

. . .During the whole of the Clinton Administration, we never ACTUALLY brought forward the charges against the then Iraqi Gov't of Saddam Hussein [to the number] of 17 times to that politically impotent organization of the "United Nations",

Not that there have always been more resolutions against Israel before the UN that the US continues to veto.

Yes indeedy, I am certain also that Adolf Hitler had approached them THEN known as the "League of Nations" about his intended actions in Poland, the U.S.S.R., etc. etc. so-on. . .

You might want to research that a bit, because Hitler marginalized the League of Nations just like Georgie did.

Jebus, Skippy. . .*YOU* are SO FUQIN' CORRECT; The 'similarities' are STRIKING!

Perhaps if you were to open your mind you might see something that you missed. But, I highly doubt that you would ever see any similarities most likely because the horrors of Nazi Germany are too great that you could never imagine it could happen again, especially not in the USA. You might also be sitting there thinking to yourself that Hitler was regarding as having above average intelligence, and well...Dubya is Dubya, or that Hitler created jobs when he first came to power and Dubya exported jobs. For your sake, I hope you see the light before it is too late, but then again, you might turn out to be as patriotic all the way to the end just like some Germans were.

So let's see what kind of similarities we can find, eh?

Hitler did not gain office by a majority. He need political maneuvering to achieve that much the same way Bush needed the Supreme Court.

A terrorist attach in Germany, the Reichstag Fire brought about the Enabling Act, a law that curtailed civil liberties in exchange for security. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Patriot Act began to do the very same things, Part Deux will finish the job. I won't go into the fact that the Riechstag Fire was a set-up much like many believe 911 was, nor that in both cases, the laws were ready before the acts themselves.

Both Bush and Hitler went on massive public relations campaigns against foreign enemies, invoking patriotism to build up their militaries. For Hitler it was communism, for Bush it was terrorism.

Both Hitler and Bush promoted militarism while in the midst of a major economic recession (or depression) and used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries .

Hitler and Bush glorified patriotism to stir up public support, claimed to be a religious cause sanctioned by God.

Hitler and Bush envisaged a future world order that guarantees his own nation's hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations).

Hitler and Bush scrapped international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.

Hitler and Bush depend on an axis of collaborative allies, which Bush describes as a "coalition of the willing," to give the impression of having a broad popular alliance. These include the U.K. as compared to Mussolini's Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II. (Not to mention that middle power Micronesia)

Hitler and Bush possess a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. Today, Bush depends on a "defense" budget roughly equivalent to the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world.

Hitler and Bush were willing to invade other nations despite the opposition of the U.N. (League of Nations). Bush also has no qualms about bribing, bullying and insulting its members, even tapping their telephone lines.

Like Hitler, Bush pursues war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. He actually seeks to reduce taxes while conducting an expensive invasion and occupation of an "undesirable" nation.

Hitler and Bush launched unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939, Bush lied to Americans to think of Iraq as a "potential" threat to US national security.

Hitler and Bush were willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed to achieve their ends.

Hitler and Bush depended on a military strategy that features a "shock and awe" blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armor columns. Later to call freedom fighters terrorists.

Like Hitler, Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea as a potential third front. Much the same thing happened when Hitler expanded German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941.

Neither Hitler nor Bush had any qualms about imposing "regime change" by installing Quisling-style client governments reinforced by full-scale military occupation under a military governor.

Hitler had concentration camps. Bush has Gitmo, Diego Garcia, Abu Graib for starters. Never within their own country, and nobody ever really knows what goes on inside. (leaving out the supposed concentration camps in the US.)

Like Hitler, Bush and his cohorts exaggerate ruthlessness by their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the Bush team (and YOU JOE! and others) justifies a full-scale invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity that were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S., supplied with both advisors and materiel (poison gas included) by the US government.

Hitler and Bush has became so obsessed with their visions of a Manichaean conflict between good (German/U.S. patriotism) and evil (the anti-patriotic "other") that for many in contact with the White House Bush is beginning to seem as if he has lost touch with reality.

Both Hitler and Bush took pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his elitist education at Andover, Yale and Harvard.

Hitler misconstrued evolutionary theory by treating the Aryan race as being superior, in Bush's case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.

----

But, as I previously mentioned, there are a number of differences between the two. Much like Americans are offended by comparing Hitler and Bush, so too were Germans offended when Hitler was compared with Caesar. One of the biggest problems is that people look back upon Hitler after all was said and done, today people are living in the Bush world and it is difficult for many to see the similarities objectively.

People continue to say that they have freedoms that Germans didn't. But they did have those freedoms in the beginning. They eroded with the passing of time. Look at the no "fly lists" or the screenings going at at airports. Talk about the abuses of the Gestapo, but ignore the abuses of the screeners at airports? The warrantless searches, Joe Padilla (American citizen) held without trial nor access to counsel based solely on one person declaring them to be an enemy combattant. Now you see that there is suggestion that people can be detained for the rest of their lives without ever going to trial?

This is it folks. It's not as bad as it got in Germany, but Bush isn't finished yet. He's just starting his next term so a lot can happen in four years. While you may think I find pleasure in this, I do not. Never have I wanted to be wrong as much as now, but when I first made a prediction after Bush's first inaguration that he would have the US at war before year's end, people called me crazy. But then, people who tried warning Germans about Htiler were called crazy too, those in Germany were eventually shuffled off to dentention centres and were silenced forever.

So, I'll not debate this anymore, do what you will, believe what you will, and may God have mercy upon your soul.

(and Joe, I've always been polite to you even when disagreeing, since you have chosen to be impolite and sarcastic, I feel no reason to do the same when it suits me.)

Skippy

Jan 6th, 2005, 6:46 PM

. . .Save for 2 very important points;

1. The mere fact of the banter that we can exercise here is the best indicator of the FREEDOM we enjoy and do DAILY, May it ALWAYS CONTINUE! :D (to Hitler, THIS medium we enjoy would be as "UNTHINKABLE!")

For now. But that could all change. One day the sysgod here may be forced to collaborate with DHS, or may discover that he is on a no fly list, or he is suddenly pulled aside at the airport for some extra screening and probing. What about the day he learns that the FBI executed a warrantless search of his home?

2. It is that we are THAT AWARE of our past "World History" which is our best insurance that we will NOT be condemned to REPEAT it. Those that forget. . .well.... :nono:

Change a colour from blue to tiel and suddenly everything looks completely different. As much as people think that humans learn from history, they don't because some dumbass always makes a stupid decision. Did Germany learn from Napoleon that attacking Russia in the winter wasn't a wise move?

DontBeAfraid

Jan 6th, 2005, 7:00 PM

You are obviously the brightest, toughest, most mature person in the universe, skippy. So why dont you teach us(the world) how to be as enlightened as you?

Skippy

Jan 6th, 2005, 7:35 PM

You are obviously the brightest, toughest, most mature person in the universe, skippy. So why dont you teach us(the world) how to be as enlightened as you?

And since you are so supportive of Bush et. al., please explain to us why you are NOT in Iraq or Afghanistan or the military right now.

Bigsky770

Jan 6th, 2005, 9:54 PM

Originally posted by Skippy
And of course none of that happened while Saddam was a client ally of the US, nor were any of the chemical weapons used by Iraq against Iran sold to Iraq by the US.

. . .Oftentimes the parity that we try to establish between warring nations does and will come back to bite us in the ass, as in this case. Example for today: The Bush administration (just recently) after the death of "Yassir 'I will push them into the sea' Arafat" decides to donate $20 MILLION Dollars to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Twenty years hence it is doubtless that this act of kindness will come back to bite-us-in-the-arse, and there will be those like yourself to remind us of it, though certainly for now it would stand as a contradiction to that which you are attempting by way of comparison, i.e. "Hitler and Bush".

Originally posted by Skippy
You might want to research that a bit, because Hitler marginalized the League of Nations just like Georgie did.

. . .You somehow missed? the news as of recent where the Bush Administration lauded the U.N. as the organization that would [and should] handle the earthquake/tsunami relief in Indonesia? (Just proves the point, I CERTAINLY do not *agree* with everything the "Bush Administration" does, as in this case.

. . .My post was in part my OWN OPINION, in that the United Nations, (like the then "League of Nations") is just a legalized criminal organization not unlike the Mafia that does not need to be Marginalized, it needs to be ABOLISHED

. . .The CRUX of this whole issue is this, Skippy. To ones like yourself, "Bush" cannot DO anything right; case in point, (again) the recent tragedy in Indonesia. First, Bush announces the first figure for 'aid' as $35 million dollars, and though this is the rough equivalent of what the entire amount is for all the donations from Arab nations, it's considered to be a paltry sum; then when he announces 10X THAT amount in the second figure and even goes further and digs out of his OWN POCKET $10,000 of his own money, it's become a 'pissing-party' whereas one participant in this 'frenzy of giving' is trying to out-do another. Bush [quite simply] CANNOT WIN. Perhaps you can tell me HOW MUCH YOU GAVE?

Btw, don't feel too bad about that last statement. Hitler wouldn't have given anything either.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

Propaganda

Jan 7th, 2005, 12:22 AM

Yea Skippy I agree. Your comparison of Hitler and Bush is insightful and intelligent.

Guys stop the hate. Im not retarded, but even if I was, whats wrong with retarted people protesting the war. In fact I spent xmas at my parents house who invited a retarted guy over to their house for XMAS. And he is against the war. He cant understand how our country can commit such an atrocity out of our selfish fear of terriorsm. And this guy is retarded. Makes me wonder what Bush supporters are.

Something needs to be done. We have to stop this war. Vietnam started exactly like this one. We were going to liberate the south vietnamese from the oppressive north. We had the technological advantage. Yet we lost the war. And that war lasted 12 years. The reason is because you cant invade a country successfully. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! Read Sun Tzu's Art of War. The first principle in War is to "Win all without fighting". The reason is because of the cost of war. In the long run, when the war is over, you will still be incurring heavy costs of cultural shock, economic hardship, and the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure. IT takes decades for all countries involved to recover from a war.

My old man is a vietnam vet. Yup hes one of those baby killers. A guy who returned from the war and got rotten tomatoes thrown in his face in the San Fan ariport. One hippy girl even spat in his face. Baby killer? yup sure was. Kids in vietnam would pull the pin on a grenade and run up and hug you. I shot em right in head he said. The reason he shot em in the head was because that was the only way to stop them. IN fact he shot em just for looking at him. You see after being in a war for over a year you begin to enjoy it. My dad talks about the day he realized he became a monster. One day his platoon was gettin high on opium in the middle of the jungle waiting for a supply to drop in the LZ. Oh yea for the brainwashed readers its true, 90% of soldiers over there were as high as a kite. And yes contrary to what your beloved politicians and historians tell you, America was killing over in Cambodia too. Anyway their job was to sit in the jungle and watch the ho chi min trail. They simply killed anything that passed by. Man, woman, child, didnt matter, because the brass wanted to increase the body count for the politicians back home. You see the raw way of telling if your winning a war is based on statistics telling you that your winning the war, the body count. Plattoons have a guy whose job is to count the enemies bodies. For entertainment that day they were playing with a dead body like it was a puppet. Old dad said he looked around as one guy was making this guys body dance to a tune that the others were singing and he realized what a monster he had become. "I suddenly realized what a year of war had done to me". "I didnt even realize that it was a dead body that we were playing with". "After a while dead bodies lying along the trail is just like looking at an animals carcass lying on the side of the road".

If you look closely at a veteran of war you will see the look of war. Their eyes are black, and their stare is as if they are looking right through you. Like you dont even exist. ITs because all hopes, dreams, and aspirations no longer exist. There is only the killer left. The soul is gone. And as you go off to your happy life that veteran lives with horrors in his mind every single day of every single year.

The point? Do you really believe that isnt happening now? The toture of the prisoners in the Iraq prison is only a shock to those who dont actually understand War. To those of us who have spent their lives with a veteran of war can only recognize what is happening. You see after a while of watching your friends get killed by the enemy you become so full of rage you will do anything to a captured enemy. My old man tortured people like you cant believe. My dad recalls cutting a guy slowly as he had nothing else to do. And after cutting a guy for several hours or even a day or two eventually he bleeds to death.

Stripping them naked is childs play. There was a guy in my dads platoon that made a necklace out of vietnamese ears. After each gunfight he would run around in a frenzy cutting off their ears to add to his collection. If they were still alive he would leave them alive while he cut off their ears. Eventually their wounds would kill them. Looking back my dad recalls that the guy chanted to himself while he did it. He mumbled something to himself out loud. At the time he never noticed it. Its called insanity.

I dont mean to insult anyone's intelligence on history. I dont mean nothing but to protest this war. WE HAVE TO STOP IT NOW!

Like skippy says if you support the war then perhaps you should be over there. My interpretation of skippy's statement is that if you wish to support a war, then you better be doing it packin an M16 otherwise your a sickly coward.

Any person, especially a president who supports a war and does not have the guts and integrity to stand on the battlefield himself should be shot for crimes against humanity. Because killing such freaks is far less of a problem than killing innnocent children or sending our own innocent children to kill.

Sorry if your offended, but exactly who are you to be offended? Are you some kind of specialty under God's creation that you should not be offended? No your a human creature that must come the conclusion that War is not only a crime against humanity, but a crime against God itself.

Its time to protest. AS the son of a veteran my guilt weighs heavy. Ironically I desire to be over there right now, because I feel indebted to my father's atrocity. It is only out of my father's wishes that I am not there. Yes, I too am a coward. I should be packing a gun in the desert killing people or getting killed.

But because ol dad dont want me to go, I simply cant disrespect his wishes. And I can tell you that it is honestly killing me inside. I am 32 years old, single with no kids, and I make too much money for my own good. People like me should be over there, not the innocent kids from poor minoirty families. Especially those who are fathers. I dont want the next generation of kids grow up watching their father struggle with horrible things that he did. Its not easy to be 9 years old and watch your father break down crying one day at a fishing trip and hear the atrocities spill out of his mouth. Its not easy to be 9 years old and have your own father beg you for forgiveness because of the things he did. It fuqin hurts man.

I beg all of you to get our soldiers/kids home. PROTEST PLEASE! Spare our kids of the murder we are forcing them to commit. I beg you to let them go home to their children and live long happy lives. Terrosits will never go away. Its a social disease born from people who are offended by western desire of mateialistic things. This war solves nothing. It wont change their minds. It only confirms their suspicions of our culture.

Once again for those of you who support any kind of war, you are either ignorant(meaning uneducated) of the truth or your simply evil in nature before the eyes of God.

This war on Iraq is about the fact that US control of Oil was threatened. When you think of what oil is used for you can see its the center of power. Plastics (grocery bags, computer keyboards, plastic wrap.......), paint, gas, fertilizer, heating, lubrication everything you touch is either maufactured with petro as a componant or is shipped in a product that includes petro in its own use or manufacturing.

WAKE UP FOLKS. Otherwise the warm water we are sitting in will be boiling, and it will be too late. If it isnt already.

To this day I still catch my dad constantly looking over his shoulder. His hands nervously rubbing each other. Constantly looking at every dark corner. Constantly looking for that next bullet to come flying past his head. Its like he has had a bad case of anxiety for the past 34 years. But whats amazing is that of all the things he has done, he is by nature just a gentle creature, who flinches when he sees someone who is even just having a bad day. AS a grown man I watch him toy around in his shop with his little wood projects that he shyly shows me. And I stand there looking at such a gentle soul that reminds me of a young boy that never wanted anything out of life but to just be happy and see everyone around him be happy. And when I hear of people supporting a war I feel rage build inside. How could people knowingly send such a gentle creature like this off to a war and make him kill?

dutchie

Jan 7th, 2005, 2:40 AM

If all you're telling us is really the truth and nothing but the truth then I salute you on your post. You have gotten far more misery out of war then you ever bargained for.

I hate to quote myself but..

"I am AGAINST this war, as I would be against ANY war. War is always the chessgame of the mighty and pityless, sacrificing the powerless, poor and innocent for their own political (read: power and money) purposes."

I guess you're telling us much the same thing. Although your post is not right on topic, it's a emotional statement against war in general and as such should be welcomed and not taken lightly.

I guess it's true that history won't learn as anything at all when it comes to waging war - we'll just go on doing that for ever and ever.

Bigsky770

Jan 7th, 2005, 2:51 AM

. . .Your post has shown you for what you are, a very peaceful fellow who does not want to see a world at war, it may surprise you to know that I as well find WAR a despicable, horrid thing. On this point ONLY you will that we are in total agreement.
. . .Your post also displays that SADLY as well, we may be forgetting the lessons of "HOW" WWII got started, all one need do is follow the timeline, and observe the history of inaction and appeasement by both gov'ts and the "League of Nations", that MADE Adolf Hitler possible; Indeed, EVEN the Catholic Church had stood by and allowed Hitler to do his "Dirty Work". Skippy is drawn to comparisons between Adolf Hitler and George W. Bush, whereas I believe this focus upon these two individuals is mistaken, twisted and contorted and he has taken only the most extreme of liberties with in this comparison. The only comparison that can be drawn are the ones YOU PREFER NOT TO SEE Which is:

Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussien

. . .Now, if one were to draw a comparative study of these two, I guarantee you will find many-more 'common-threads' (aside from eat/shit/sleep) that Skippy has chosen to ignore in THEIR 'commonality' and further, he also denies the "bigger picture", here in that all the United Nations wanted for us to do NOW, just as THEN when they were the "League of Nation" was a 'pattern of appeasement' of these despots.

. . .I ask you, what if we had obeyed the "calls for peace" from those that were consciences objectors to the war pre-WWII and not had formed those allied powers to remove Hitler? How-far do you think he would have gone? Do you think it's safe to say that "Jews" would be extinct as a race by now, (or) does this not even matter to you?

. . .Tell me, Propaganda, in 1945 when the allies made it to Berlin, were we invaders then? Were the Nazis ACTUALLY "Freedom Fighters?"

. . .Last thing; YOU SAY "Stop the Hate?" and you see, you do not even know me. I DON'T HATE "Skippy" for that matter, I DISAGREE with him, though I DO NOT HATE HIM. I found-out long ago, "Hate" is an emotion I cannot afford; It eats you from the inside-out, and I've no-need of this. "Debate & Argument" are WHAT WE DO HERE, Keeps things "Lively", HAhaaheee! One day, I may even MEET "Skippy", and after a good, heated debate, sit-down and have a beer with him/then talk about the kids (or) the weather. . . GET USED TO THIS! :D IT'S WHAT WE ARE ALL ABOUT! [comprende'?]

You see, I may disagree with what it is YOU SAY, YET I PROMISE to defend to the DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT. You see, Propaganda, it is this that we hold DEAR above all-else, here in AMERICA. In Hitler's Germany/Saddam's Iraq, THIS was NOT the case. In future comparisons, I suggest you start from THERE.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

DontBeAfraid

Jan 7th, 2005, 4:39 AM

And since you are so supportive of Bush et. al., please explain to us why you are NOT in Iraq or Afghanistan or the military right now.

Shitbag when did I say I suppourt bush OR his war? I like both of them about as much as I like you. Your comparison between bush/america/today to nazi/hitler/germany is just weak.... Like you.

Oh, FYI, Im too busy using the army college fund I earned to RE-enlist right now. But if we ever decide to invade canada Ill run right down to the recruiter.

Skippy

Jan 7th, 2005, 5:23 AM

Shitbag when did I say I suppourt bush OR his war? I like both of them about as much as I like you.

Aww...I'm all warm and fuzzy now. Love you too babe.

Your comparison between bush/america/today to nazi/hitler/germany is just weak.... Like you.

Whatever, it's your country, you have to live with the reprecussions more than I do.

Oh, FYI, Im too busy using the army college fund I earned to RE-enlist right now.

When the going gets tough.....the kiddies run away.

But if we ever decide to invade canada Ill run right down to the recruiter.

Gonna try that again? Never worked before, won't work again. If the US couldn't take a small country with 35 million people, what makes anyone think it could take a large country with 35 million people? A country that is more technologically advanced in some ways than the invader.

Joe...If I were to write a 2000 page essay drawing comparisons, I doubt you'd ever see it. You are focusing too much on the men, and not enough on the formula. As I said, I'll not debate this any more because nothing I could ever write would change the way some people think regardless. When the truth hurts too much, people block it out.

Propaganda...I know what you mean, I am actively involved with veterans from the Korean War and WW2.

------------------
Edit: Just to be an asshole and fan the flames of certain individuals...this is one of the reasons most Canadians aren't too concerned about Americans invading Canada. :)

Marine credited with longest sniper kill in Iraq (http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/ad983156332a819185256cb600677af3/81846e3645b6298285256f7d006744cd?OpenDocument) ....1050 yards.

Canadian credited with longest sniper kill in Afghanistan (http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/KillingShot_2430Metres.asp) ....2430 metres

substand

Jan 8th, 2005, 2:24 PM

Hitler did not gain office by a majority. He need political maneuvering to achieve that much the same way Bush needed the Supreme Court.

several us presidents and many prime ministers and top government officials around the world, even in democratic countries often do not gain office by a majority. Bush's help from the supreme court? Are you referring to

In a 7-2 opinion, the court ordered that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in Florida was to be stopped due to lacking a consistent standard. The court further declared, in a 5-4 vote, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors.
?

And you miss that even with a recount, Bush would have won. Of course, non of that gives him a majority anyway, so your point about needing the Supreme Ct is irrelevant and simply not correct. The fact that both got office is also negligible, considering how often this happens around the world and how few times it gives rise to a Hitler.

Besides all that, you fail to mention that the political climate surrounding Germany's new democracy was one of mistrust... many people did not like the idea. Hitler had spent his youth preaching against socialists and jews (and others) as well. All of whom many people perceived as threats, none of whom could be shown to have attacked Germany. He was able to gain power in not only an economically ravaged and unstable country, but a politically unstable one as well. No such situation existed for Bush, and I'm probably right in assuming he did not spend his youth telling us the evils of muslims and how they should be killed. The terrorists attacked us on 9/11 in a way which was no longer mostly ignorable like past attacks.

Enabling Act, a law that curtailed civil liberties in exchange for security. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Patriot Act began to do the very same things, Part Deux will finish the job.

The Enabling Act virtually did away with the German constitution and allowed nazis to run the country as they saw fit. The patriot act does no such thing. while it may be unconstitutional in parts, we still have courts to deal with such matters. The patriot act does not say "Laws decided upon by the government of Bush may deviate from the provisions of the constitution ..." like the Enabling Act does. Again, it may deviate, but it doesn't give power for everything to deviate, and we still have courts to determine the constitutionality. In fact, 2 sections have already been ruled unconstitutional and from what I've read, patact2 is supposed
to be fixing the unconstitutionality of the original. In either case, the two are hardly comparable in terms of breaking the constitution. In one case, the law explicitly said any law can ingore the constitution so long as it doesn't affect the parliament etc, and this other gives wire tap warrant authority to a secret court, instead of a public one (among many other things, none of which can remotely be compared to "it is ok for Bush to do what he wants").

Both Bush and Hitler went on massive public relations campaigns against foreign enemies, invoking patriotism to build up their militaries. For Hitler it was communism, for Bush it was terrorism.

any leader in war time must invoke patriotism against their foreign enemies. For hitler it was much more than just communism, and included non-foreign enemies as well. At least Bush constrains his comments to terrorists and not all Muslims, even calling Islam the religion of peace seemingly every time he mentions it.

Both Hitler and Bush promoted militarism while in the midst of a major economic recession (or depression) and used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries .

As did FDR in Hitlers time, and much more can be said about FDR approaching dictatorial power than could be said about Bush. In fact, most nations involved in WW2 were building militaries in the midst of economic depression. I suppose they all were hitler-like too. AND, to call the recession we just went through "major" is just ludicrous. It was nothing of the sort.

Hitler and Bush glorified patriotism to stir up public support, claimed to be a religious cause sanctioned by God.

most leaders use patriotism to gain public support. how much public support are you gonna get by not glorfying your country and its people? "You are all stupid, ignorant, wretches born of the idiots of our past. Now support my proposals." I can see the support statements like that will stir up, and that support is for your opponent. Also, many leaders invoke God as well, it is hardly limited to Bush and Hitler. The same things can be said about many leaders all over the world in all time periods.

Hitler and Bush envisaged a future world order that guarantees his own nation's hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations).

In fact, anyone who subscribes to balance of power politics and would like to see his nation remain a nation (and not some subservient unit in world government) fits this description.

Hitler and Bush scrapped international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.

Some of which we were never party to, and some of which were completely out of date and no longer relevant, and some of which Bush has come back wanting to stengthen, and some of which Bush only rejected "new" things on. Besides that, it is not entirely up to Bush, as only the US Senate has the power to ratify "treaties" if we call them such. (there are instances of international law that are considered treaties internationally that we do not call treaties but follow like they are, on which the Senate has not voted or not voted 2/3 in support of)

Hitler and Bush depend on an axis of collaborative allies, which Bush describes as a "coalition of the willing," to give the impression of having a broad popular alliance.

Which nation and leader does not do this? Saddam of Iraq? He didn't seem to have an axis of allies. Other than that, I suppose all of NATO is comparable to hitler based on this description.

Hitler and Bush possess a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. Today, Bush depends on a "defense" budget roughly equivalent to the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world.

Many nations at various times had the best war machines. Not all of them were Nazi-like, and there is no unwritten rule that guarantees having the best military is equivalent to making oneself a Nazi. Many past US presidents also presided over this "war machine," are they all Hitler too?

Hitler and Bush were willing to invade other nations despite the opposition of the U.N. (League of Nations). Bush also has no qualms about bribing, bullying and insulting its members, even tapping their telephone lines.

First, no country needs the support of the UN or other international body to defend itself. 2nd, the UN promised severe consequences. A wording used specifically so France could bitch about us invading yet we could still invade. Seeing as how our invasion the first time was undoubtedly and clearly legal by UN wording, and how that conflict was never resolved and Saddam broke his agreements first, I fail to see how this current one is against the UN, especially given the wording, which was very clear about its intentions and the reasoning for the words chosen.

substand

Jan 8th, 2005, 2:25 PM

Like Hitler, Bush pursues war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. He actually seeks to reduce taxes while conducting an expensive invasion and occupation of an "undesirable" nation.

Albeit, on a much smaller scale.

Hitler and Bush launched unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939, Bush lied to Americans to think of Iraq as a "potential" threat to US national security.

Hardly unilateral, and hardly preemptively. Simply because Bush used the words in error does not make it so. Had France or Britain "preemtively" attacked Germany for breaking the buildup rules imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, we could have avoided WW2. Bush "preemptively" attacked Iraq for breaking the rules imposed on them after the first Gulf War (among many other good reasons).

Hitler and Bush were willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed to achieve their ends.

Is it so much "willingly" or is it more "acceptingly." Any leader who makes the decision for war must be prepared to accept that people will die, not just Hitler or Bush. Bush has not ordered his military to flatten everything in its path. Bush has not ordered his police to kill every muslim in the US, among other lesser humans. Bush (the US) has developed technology to try and kill as few civilians as possible. Bush's military attempts at helping those innocents they have injured. I see this not as "willingness." Reluctance seems to be a better word.

Hitler and Bush depended on a military strategy that features a "shock and awe" blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armor columns. Later to call freedom fighters terrorists.

Yet we didn't see this shock and awe, or at least not to its potential. We tried our best to hit strategic targets, not just blow up entire cities. And to call these terrorists freedom fighters when they are clearly fighting against freedom is ludicrous as well. If they want freedom, let them participate in elections instead of killing those who want to.

Like Hitler, Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea as a potential third front. Much the same thing happened when Hitler expanded German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941.

There is no doubting this strategy seems familiar. I wonder how many other conflicts begin this way? Whether the current one will be successful or mean the utter destruction of the US remains to be seen.

Neither Hitler nor Bush had any qualms about imposing "regime change" by installing Quisling-style client governments reinforced by full-scale military occupation under a military governor.

Neither did we have a problem doing it to Germany and Japan after WW2, and it seemed to work out ok. It is hardly something that only Hitler or Bush would have done, as international law requires it. So again, comparison between Bush and Hitler: invalid.

Hitler had concentration camps. Bush has Gitmo, Diego Garcia, Abu Graib for starters. Never within their own country, and nobody ever really knows what goes on inside. (leaving out the supposed concentration camps in the US.)

All wars have POW and detention camps. When we find Muslims being transported to these simply because they are Muslims, and when we find them being indescrimitely gassed or cooked to get the gold from their teeth, then perhaps you can use this comparison. I find it unlikely that will happen, however. But until then, this comparison is invalid, as most of your up to this point have been.

Like Hitler, Bush and his cohorts exaggerate ruthlessness by their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the Bush team (and YOU JOE! and others) justifies a full-scale invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity that were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S., supplied with both advisors and materiel (poison gas included) by the US government.

First off, and this is not to justify what Hitler did, but he was right about the ruthlessness of the communist violence. And you are saying we exaggerate the ruthlessness of Saddam? Poppycock. It was still being committed, not "mostly when they were a client-ally of the US". It was being committed all the time, during the 90s as well. Maybe he didn't gas an entire villiage, but to call our characterization of Saddam as evil an exaggeration is just silly.

Hitler and Bush has became so obsessed with their visions of a Manichaean conflict between good (German/U.S. patriotism) and evil (the anti-patriotic "other") that for many in contact with the White House Bush is beginning to seem as if he has lost touch with reality.

I cannot vouch for this or assume it is true, simply because I do not know anyone in contact with the white house. But there are several who have resigned and there are several who are happy to work with him. I don't know that that tells us anything.

Both Hitler and Bush took pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his elitist education at Andover, Yale and Harvard.

Simplistic cowboy values? Is there something wrong with those values? Many Americans cling to them, the cowboy has long been romanticized in the US (though less in the past 20 yrs and some). I grew up in and around texas, and I could no more change my accent by going to acting school than I could going to elite educational institutions. Do they teach you how to speak there? I'm not sure that Hitler's cowboy values and Bush's are a valid comparison between the two. That would make millions of Americans Hitler too.

Hitler misconstrued evolutionary theory by treating the Aryan race as being superior, in Bush's case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.

What?

today people are living in the Bush world and it is difficult for many to see the similarities objectively.

This is because 90% of your "similarities" can be said about most any country and leader in any time frame, and thus dismissed. Under your similarities you could probably make a case for just about anyone being Hitler-like.

Joe Padilla (American citizen) held without trial nor access to counsel based solely on one person declaring them to be an enemy combattant.

While I beleive he should be charged or freed, it is not just based on a declaration he is an enemy combatant. There is ample evidence that he received training from terrorists. Even Time magazine says "his connections with al-Qaeda operatives were never in doubt." (from http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html)

substand

Jan 8th, 2005, 2:41 PM

As I said, I'll not debate this any more because nothing I could ever write would change the way some people think regardless

a clever way to avoid criticism of an argument!

..this is one of the reasons most Canadians aren't too concerned about Americans invading Canada. :)

theres that and the fact you must realize we despise the people there. we want nothing to do with you all, well, besides Pam Anderson. =) we're happy to just keep you as the honorary 51st state. =)

WasteLandWa|2rior

Jan 8th, 2005, 8:35 PM

a clever way to avoid criticism of an argument!

theres that and the fact you must realize we despise the people there. we want nothing to do with you all, well, besides Pam Anderson. =) we're happy to just keep you as the honorary 51st state. =)
LOL
substand u basterd...
i find your point of view on canada interesting...
its great foreshadowing...
i think it is a very real posibility of eather an anexation or invasion of canada buy the states...
i know allot of u would say NO WAY THATS BS WHY WOULD THE US DO THAT....
well think 10 years from now...
this war will not be over.. infact it will be larger... and the US will be fucked...
you all know it...
and when uve used up all of your resources like FRESH WATER.... LUMBER...
WILDLIFE.... we got alot of oil in northern alberta too...
i wouldnt be suprized at all if the US comes into canada to take our shit....
all i have to say ...
is i cant wait....

Propaganda

Jan 9th, 2005, 2:53 AM

Shitbag when did I say I suppourt bush OR his war? I like both of them about as much as I like you. Your comparison between bush/america/today to nazi/hitler/germany is just weak.... Like you.

Oh, FYI, Im too busy using the army college fund I earned to RE-enlist right now. But if we ever decide to invade canada Ill run right down to the recruiter.

I consider Canada and America as one country. I live a couple hundered miles from Canada and meet canadians regularly. They are great people. This may come as a shock to you but they are just like us. People just trying to make a living. Oh no wer arent racist against black people, but these days its just fine to hate Canadians and the French.

I hate to say this, but the USA has become so spoiled with materialism and arrogance we have built ourselves on some kind of ivory tower that is gettin very close to getting knocked over. I dont care how rich we are, if we continue to isolate ourselves above and beyond the rest of the world we will fall.

You see each country has a culture. If you were raised in Canada your opinion would be much different. And quite frankly the reason you werent born in Canada is because you just by chance were born here (get my point). If you were raised in frellin China, your opinion would be different. Just because we dont agree with a country that doesnt live like us doesnt make us any better. You could very well have been born in China as much as Canada or the USA.

Skippy you remeber when us Americans looked down on your prescription drugs. What was it last summer America was all up in arms over people buying cheaper drugs from Canada. Oh God! Everybody said, Canadians drugs arnt safe. They are a lesser country and they arent technologically advanced enough to make safe prescription drugs. Fast forward to the past few weeks. Suddenly we are pulling our own drugs off the shelf because they are causing heart attacks. And now Congress has debated about importing drugs from Canada. The Irony is that Canada wont open trade, not because they are arrogant, but because they simply dont have enough supply and they are concerned that their own citizens would suffer. Everytime we Americans make fun of Canadians I become amazed at how they just sit up there in the cold and endure it. Perhaps they are so used to weathering the frelling cold that our arrogance simply doesnt bother them.

I bow before Canadians because every time we make fun of them, they just laugh and wink at us. If it wasnt so damn close to the arctic I would move my ass up there. That is of course if you guys would take me. I just wish Canada ruled Mexico because as much as I hate cold weather, Im as far north as I ever want to go :)

If any of you want to get your message across. WHy dont you try being open minded and constructive with other people around the world. Stop being arrogant. If you dont like Canadians, than honestly tell them why in a polite and respectful manner. Perhaps they will tell you why they think the way they think, which will likely clue you in to something that you may not be aware of.

Christains think they are the only "true" religion on earth. By GOd if you dont accept Jesus into your heart than your gonna rot in Hell. Jews believe christ lived, but dont consider him their savior. Muslims spend their lives placing their face on the ground because they are trying to be more humble than thier God, yet wont let the jews build their temple. The Jews want to eradicate the Muslims temple so they can build. Illuminists spend their lives secretly trying to eradicate the Christians and rule the word so that they can ascend into GOds themselves. Satanists run around dressing in black and trying to inact anarchy so they can spend their lives sacrificing, killing, and anonomously have sex with each other. Athiests spend their lives trying to find scientific research that proves God doesnt exist so that before they die (and never exist again) they can prove that they are smarter than "foolish religious people". On and on and on and on.....................and on and on.

No one is right, and no one is wrong. There is only a bunch of humans who see the world through their own eyes based upon the things that have happened to them. And so ego and arrogance takes over and hate and death resides.

Everbody says it, but never practices it. CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

If it werent for Canadians I wouldnt get the chance to say "eh" as a joke. If it wasnt for british I wouldnt get to stiffen my upper lip and act proper to entertain my friends. If it wasnt for mexicans I wouldnt be able to dream of what its like to take a siesta every day in the afternoon. If it wasnt for the polish I would feel that much more guilty for wearing the same sweater two more times without washing it. If it wasnt for the Japanese I wouldnt have the chance to see a city that takes me 20 years into the future. If it wasnt for India, there would never have been a ghandi. If it wasnt for America the Internet probably wouldnt exist for another ten years or so. If it wasnt for Russia, we could have lost WWII. If it wasnt for george Bush we would have caught Osama bin laudin and the United Nations would still be negotiating with Iraq on agricultural trade (and over 110,000 lives woudnt have been lost).

ON and on.

Ok go ahead lets see what kind of hateful responce I will get out of this one. Cmon show me your intelligence. Show me how much you know about world affairs. Ridicule me you frellin bastards. Reach inside and just pull out your hate. Thats it, keep on hatin. Hate as hard as you can possibly hate. Call me an idiot, retard, freak, jackass. Make your hand into a fist and curse me as best as you can. Because everybody in this bulletin wants to read about your arrogancec, hate, and ultimately superior intelligence. Hate my friends. BECAUSE HATE SOLVES EVERYTHING. HATE. HATE. HATE.

Feels good doesnt it. Well then keep on doing it I guess. if it makes you feel better. But I doubt it will accomplish anything.

DontBeAfraid

Jan 9th, 2005, 4:48 AM

props you dont know me well enough to tell when im being serious and when Im being over the top, let alone tell me what my opinion is. I dont really hate canadians I just dont like skippy.

Skippy

Jan 9th, 2005, 8:28 AM

I'm somewhat pressed for time right now because I am writing an article commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Rhineland. A large part of the audience who will be reading it were actually there. So I've got to focus my concentration on that until I get it done. So I am going to try to address some of your responses, however, I will be brief, and I am going to do away with any fancy formatting.

several us presidents and many prime ministers and top government officials around the world, even in democratic countries often do not gain office by a majority. Bush's help from the supreme court? Are you referring to
?

----True, but don't mix definitions of majority. In this case it is majority of votes cast as in who got the most. not 50% + 1.

---

Besides all that...

I'll give you that this isn't the strongest point, and it is more a sensational point on the surface. The main point being that in both cases, it was backroom adjustments by friends that secured power. Don't get hooked up on the semantics. Yes it does happen in other countries, and has happened at other times. But there is a common flavour in these two because both did it with personal agendas in mind.

The Enabling Act virtually did ....

---You are making a legal argument. Don't. You've got to look at the results of the laws, and in the case of the US, also consider executive orders. Once the Patriot Act II is completely entrenched into your justice system, and it is invoked in all its glory, you may be looking at this entirely differently. Revisit this topic in 2 years.

...any leader in war time must invoke patriotism against their foreign enemies.

----True, and the point being that this emotion was invoked based upon lies and it is not being used for the greater good of the people but to fruther the aims of a personal agenda. Usually it is when a country is aggressed upon that the emotion flows naturally and the leader corrals it into a national feeling. Bush usurped that with 911 and has been diverting it to other causes for which there is no basis.

As did FDR in Hitlers time,

---big difference. FDR was in a defensive position.

Also, many leaders invoke God as well, it is hardly limited to Bush and Hitler.

---Yes, and these are the people who give us the Crusades, civil wars, the Inquisition, and spurn terrorism. As I said, this is part of a formula. They do it because it works.

In fact, anyone who subscribes to balance of power politics and would like to see his nation remain a nation (and not some subservient unit in world government) fits this description.

--- And in this case, the US wants to make other coutries subserviant to it. Forget about the personal feelings and the flaws of the UN...it makes sense to have a fourm for countries to deal with their political problems. Too bad it doesn't work all the time, and it would be nice if we could fix it. But Bush wants to make the US the global sheriff and in fact replace the UN with the US in charge and his allies client states.

Besides that, it is not entirely up to Bush, as only the US Senate has the power to ratify "treaties" if we call them such.

---again, you are arguing law; don't. The fact is, these are agreements. Rather than remover yourself, make the agreements work. What's wrong with the land mines treaty that the US refuses to agree to? An ICC is a good thing, every country has the opportunity to try the case at home first, it's only the places that refuse to address an act that get hauled before it.

Which nation and leader does not do this? Saddam of Iraq? He didn't seem to have an axis of allies. Other than that, I suppose all of NATO is comparable to hitler based on this description.

Many nations at various times had the best war machines. Not all of them were Nazi-like, and there is no unwritten rule that guarantees having the best military is equivalent to making oneself a Nazi. Many past US presidents also presided over this "war machine," are they all Hitler too?

---bullies will be bullies and it isn't hard to see them when they are. You keep throwing out the word Nazi which means you don't really understand this point. And yes, any time a country has become so militarily superior to it's neighbours, it has sought to over power them and impose their system while making them client states. Part of the formula, but Bush and Hitler both pursue the same flavour of this.

First, no country needs the support of the UN or other international body to defend itself.

---you are right, and that exists in over war. In the case of Afghanistan, that country is two steps ahead of being cave men so it is hardly believable that they posed a threat to the US. The Taliban was quite clear that if the US would provide the evidence to support their charges that they would act according to their law and punish accordingly. They should have been given the oppornity to at least mount a dog and pony show before engaging in war.

As for Iraq, there was no self-defence at all. This is a war of aggression, and so to will its expansion to Iran and Syria will be. Campaigning season begins in the middle east and asia in February and lasts until the end of May. I the US doesn't expand their war during this period, then they will most likely wait another year. We are seeing reports of over flights by American jets over Iran, so we do have recon happening which is suggestive of war.

...that conflict was never resolved and Saddam broke his agreements first,

that's still no justification for a war of aggression. The issue could have been dealt with olitically, but both sides were set upon a course that would prevent that. THe US did everything in its power to thwart any attempts to resolve issues. The sanction place on Iraq killed millions. This was intentionally done.

Skippy

Jan 9th, 2005, 9:13 AM

eonomy....Albeit, on a much smaller scale.

--- one wold expect some differences in economic structures, but Bush is doing it at the expense of the people and in favour of the corporations.

...Simply because Bush used the words in error does not make it so.

--- is that what you called lying in Texas?

Had France or Britain "preemtively" attacked Germany for breaking the buildup rules imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, we could have avoided WW2.

---no, that would have made Britain and France the aggressors. It would have only started WW2 sooner because at that time the German military was further advanced, and after the experience of WW1 they did not want a repeat.

Bush "preemptively" attacked Iraq for breaking the rules imposed on them after the first Gulf War (among many other good reasons).

--- You are trying to convince yourself. You are trying to say that Bush jumped the gun and attacked Iraq before Iraq could attack America because Iraq was broke a rule? Yet there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was going to attack anyone, let alone the US. Where is preemptively in any of this?

Any leader who makes the decision for war must be prepared to accept that people will die, not just Hitler or Bush.

---uh, yeah, when it's not their life to live. In military jargon it is called wastage. But both Hitler and Bush have thrown their citizens into the charnel house in pursuit of a war of aggression for their own personal (puppet) agendas.

Bush has not ordered his military to flatten everything in its path.

---Neither did Hitler, in some circumstances it was ordered on a small scale, but this is an issue of semantics that is more of a distraction than anything else. Fallujah is pretty flat right now.

Bush has not ordered his police to kill every muslim in the US, among other lesser humans.

---Not yet, and to be honest, I would be surprised if that happened in the US for some time. On the other hand, Bush is supporting Israel who openly refer to the Palestinians as sub humans. And in Iraq, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US soldier considers the Iraqi as a sub human animal. It takes time to convince the people that one race is less than others because the lesson we learned from Hitler was that we should promote tolerance and eliminate racism. Here Bush has had to begin with the American way is superior to the Middle Eastern way, and from that will flow the racism. It's not so much the religion that is the issue, but the system of beliefs that includes religion as well as social outlook, etc..

Bush (the US) has developed technology to try and kill as few civilians as possible.

--- LOL. Did you read that in a press release? For Christ's sake, the US soldier doesn't give a fuck about anyone in country, and the leaders, both military and political care only so much as it affects public perception. Of course they want to hit military targets with their really expensive munitions, but if they miss then it is, Oh well, shit happens."

And to call these terrorists freedom fighters when they are clearly fighting against freedom is ludicrous as well.

--- you have been brainwashed. The US is occupying their country. Freedom? Leave and let them sort it out...that's freedom.

If they want freedom, let them participate in elections instead of killing those who want to.

---it's a puppet government just like Afghanistan. The US doesn't want a free election, they want a client state.

There is no doubting this strategy seems familiar. I wonder how many other conflicts begin this way?

---Yes, it is, as I have kept saying all along, a formula for empire building. You keep focusing on the men rather than the formula. Must be a chip installed that causes this.

Whether the current one will be successful or mean the utter destruction of the US remains to be seen.

---All empires fail after a time. The results are usually not good.

Neither did we have a problem doing it to Germany and Japan after WW2, and it seemed to work out ok. It is hardly something that only Hitler or Bush would have done, as international law requires it. So again, comparison between Bush and Hitler: invalid.

---different scenarios. In Germany and Japan, that was after we had defended ourselves in conflict. With Hitler and Bush, it is after a war of conquest, and their puppets are compliant to the needs of the master.

All wars have POW and detention camps.

---wars? like the war on terrorism? the war of drugs? the war on <insert noun here>. Those aren't wars. That is a marketing scam because the acts it refers to are in fact crimes. Yes, all wars have detention camps, for crimes we have prisons. But, like Germany, they located their camps outside Germany far away from the prying eye of the citizen in a land where the prisioners status was in limbo and there is no need for lawyers or judges.

When we find Muslims being transported to these simply because they are Muslims, and when we find them being indescrimitely gassed or cooked to get the gold from their teeth, then perhaps you can use this comparison. I find it unlikely that will happen, however. But until then, this comparison is invalid, as most of your up to this point have been.

---so the comparison can only be made after it is too late? but then, like you I do doubt that it will ever happen in the same manner as it did in Germany.

First off, and this is not to justify what Hitler did, but he was right about the ruthlessness of the communist violence.

---same for terrorism, it's not the ruthlessness of it, but the threat of it that was exaggerated.

And you are saying we exaggerate the ruthlessness of Saddam?

---No, and that's not the issue. There are many leaders in the world today who are as bad, and some are worse than Saddam. This will awlays be an afterthough. But don't ever forget that the US was complicit in the ruthlessness of Saddam.

This is because 90% of your "similarities" can be said about most any country and leader in any time frame, and thus dismissed. Under your similarities you could probably make a case for just about anyone being Hitler-like.

--- only those who are in pursuit of the same. Many similarities could be made with Stalin, Caesar, the Catholic Church, Alexander, you name it.

While I beleive he should be charged or freed, it is not just based on a declaration he is an enemy combatant. There is ample evidence that he received training from terrorists. Even Time magazine says "his connections with al-Qaeda operatives were never in doubt."

---So then, let him, have a lawyer, go to court and be subject to American law. This is just the start, if this can happen then it will get worse.

Skippy

Jan 9th, 2005, 9:27 AM

I consider Canada and America as one country.

This is one of the problems that has an influence on how Americans are perceived by Canadians. That is a very presumptuous view that is offensive to Canadians. The fact is that we don't. We are a separate and distinct country that is very different from the US on important issues that we could never consider ourselves in any way remotely connected as a country. Nothing pisses of Canadians more than when US tourists come here and pay in US money, then demand their change in "real money."

Canadians look at themselves as distinctly Canadian. Its only in the recent immigrant population, and a few very small demographic groups where you would find views to even hint at that. Just as there is the "American Way," there is the "Canadian Way," and this is what separates our two countries. We do share some characteristics, but our differences are two great to be considered one.

Canadians don't hate Americans. That is a very common misconception. We don't like Bush, nor the US administration. That is because they are so contrary to the Canadian Way that most Canadians cannot accept them and find them offensive. We tended to like Clinton more.

For the most part, Canadians perceive Americans pretty much in the same way we perceive that boorish cousin who is overbearing, loud, obnoxious, selfish, and always getting themself into trouble. You're part of the family and while you piss us off at times, we're stuck with you so we'd better get along. But sometimes you do some stuff that is so good that we can't help but love you. But most of the time you're pretty annoying, and we always make up in the end.

substand

Jan 9th, 2005, 1:12 PM

substand u basterd...
i find your point of view on canada interesting...
its great foreshadowing...

=) it was only meant to be a joke ... sorry. saw something on the bbc once where they had a sentance out of the blue, like:

"Canada, which many Americans see as the 51st US state, is set to ..."

what was it last summer America was all up in arms over people buying cheaper drugs from Canada. Oh God! Everybody said, Canadians drugs arnt safe. They are a lesser country and they arent technologically advanced enough to make safe prescription drugs.

we were up in arms because we pay for all the r&d on these drugs that canada's govt puts price controls on. thus americans pay for the bulk price of a drug and canada not only gets it subsidized by their government, but by Americans who buy drugs as well. it is unfair trade, and had little to nothing to do with safety. sorry to be off topic.

Everytime we Americans make fun of Canadians I become amazed at how they just sit up there in the cold and endure it

its because they are liberal girly men.

If you dont like Canadians, than honestly tell them why in a polite and respectful manner. Perhaps they will tell you why they think the way they think, which will likely clue you in to something that you may not be aware of.

I don't dislike Canadians. I just like a good Canadian joke. Just like I like a good American redneck joke, a good liberal joke, a good jewish, black, arab, mexican, european ... any joke. I like most stereotyping jokes, as a matter of fact. But I think I only like them because I think PC crap has gone too far.

My avatar is only a response to skippy's, not a general reflection of my feelings about Canada and Canadians. I realize there are good Canadians and bad Canadians, just like there are good and and bad Americans.

No one is right, and no one is wrong.

That is precisely what is WRONG with some political philosophies today.

NOW BACK TO THE TOPIC: =)

True, but don't mix definitions of majority. In this case it is majority of votes cast as in who got the most.

That would be a plurality.

You are making a legal argument. Don't. You've got to look at the results of the laws, and in the case of the US, also consider executive orders. Once the Patriot Act II is completely entrenched into your justice system, and it is invoked in all its glory, you may be looking at this entirely differently. Revisit this topic in 2 years.

Dealing as it does with laws, legality matters. If the Patriot Act is being found by the courts to be unconstitutional, then we can see that it is not going to be allowed to circumvent the constitution. It still doesn't give the power to circumvent the constitution like the Enabling Act did, but I will make a legal agument that if it were allowed to stand, being unconstitutional, it will give legal precedent to similar laws, which would be just as bad as the Enabling Act. However, lucky for us, our courts are finding it unconstitutional.

True, and the point being that this emotion was invoked based upon lies and it is not being used for the greater good of the people but to fruther the aims of a personal agenda. Usually it is when a country is aggressed upon that the emotion flows naturally and the leader corrals it into a national feeling. Bush usurped that with 911 and has been diverting it to other causes for which there is no basis.

This is true, at least as evidenced by the lack of finding WMD to this point. However, there were many other valid and good arguments made for war. Back in Oct 2002, I wrote a long peice calling for this action in Iraq, without making the case of WMD. All during the time period from then leading up to the war, I thought Bush was making a mistake even mentioning WMD, much less stressing them. But I still remember his other points, and I even wrote an article (maybe 2) about how it was stupid and irrelevant to be stressing WMD and giving more "proof" everytime it was asked for. So I guess I see it differently than most people, in that I was making the case based on factors almost exluding WMD... and in seeing it this way, I don't see the lies and personal agendas you speak of.

Also, many leaders invoke God as well, it is hardly limited to Bush and Hitler.

---Yes, and these are the people who give us the Crusades, civil wars, the Inquisition, and spurn terrorism. As I said, this is part of a formula. They do it because it works.

They are also people who saved us in WW2 (and other actions that saved many people)... not to mention invoking God for nothing having to do with military. I imagine the only time God has not been invoked often by political leaders is in regimes where religion is illegal and more recently (say in the past 20 yrs) with God being frowned upon in the public arena in some countries.

--- And in this case, the US wants to make other coutries subserviant to it. Forget about the personal feelings and the flaws of the UN...it makes sense to have a fourm for countries to deal with their political problems. Too bad it doesn't work all the time, and it would be nice if we could fix it. But Bush wants to make the US the global sheriff and in fact replace the UN with the US in charge and his allies client states.

Again, its not just Bush. People in this country have long been lamenting our role as the "world police." It has been going on since WW2, so again, it is hardly limited to Bush and I don't beleive you can use it as a "similarity" in the formula. I don't like it myself. And its not just the US, people in other countries complain about us not being quick enough to respond militarily to conflicts around the world, as evidenced recently by our slow movement to get involved in Liberia and Haiti . (Bush was slow, but had he acted without ppl complaining he would have been a cowboy gunslinger)

Besides that, it is not entirely up to Bush, as only the US Senate has the power to ratify "treaties" if we call them such.

---again, you are arguing law; don't. The fact is, these are agreements. Rather than remover yourself, make the agreements work. What's wrong with the land mines treaty that the US refuses to agree to? An ICC is a good thing, every country has the opportunity to try the case at home first, it's only the places that refuse to address an act that get hauled before it.

Are we required to agree with everyone? Often these "agreements" seem to be aimed politically or actually to harm the US. I don't know why not about the land mines, but in the case of ICC, we rightly fear that it could and might be used politically against the US. We fear this because of "agreements" like Kyoto, which was obviously aimed to hurt the US. So much so, that our Senate voted 95-0 against it, during the Clinton yrs. So again, not only was it not just Bush, but you don't get that kind of partisan agreement here unless the matter is trivial, or quite blantantly bad for the US. 95-0, think about it, and then ask why we might not want to be party to such an "agreement." The Bio and Chem weapons thing Bush wanted to strengthen after initially not liking them, so we can throw those out the window as well.

bullies will be bullies and it isn't hard to see them when they are. You keep throwing out the word Nazi which means you don't really understand this point. And yes, any time a country has become so militarily superior to it's neighbours, it has sought to over power them and impose their system while making them client states. Part of the formula, but Bush and Hitler both pursue the same flavour of this.

I keep using the term Nazi because we are comparing Bush to Hitler. And if we are so militarily superior and imposing our system while making client states, we were doing it long before Bush was in office. So again, the comparison does not fit. Bush is doing nothing new. Clinton was imposing our military strength around the globe. Its not like we are invading benevolent countries who mean no harm to anyone. We did not invade Canada, simply because we wanted to take it over. We took out Hussein, a dispicable despot.

---you are right, and that exists in over war. In the case of Afghanistan, that country is two steps ahead of being cave men so it is hardly believable that they posed a threat to the US.

Clearly a government that supports terrorism is no threat to anyone. ??? I thought that 9/11 brought to the forefront exactly what sort of damage terrorists can do. Prior to that, no one really paid much attention to the 10s who were killed here, 100s killed there. International terrorists are often supported by Governments. The Taliban government was one such regime, as was Saddam's.

...that conflict was never resolved and Saddam broke his agreements first,

that's still no justification for a war of aggression. The issue could have been dealt with olitically, but both sides were set upon a course that would prevent that. THe US did everything in its power to thwart any attempts to resolve issues. The sanction place on Iraq killed millions. This was intentionally done.

The previous 12 yrs were spent trying to deal with the issue politically. It did not work, and there was absolutely no evidence to sugguest that it would eventually work, as Saddam was given "one last chance" and he even tried to manuver around that. Sanctions did not kill Iraqis. Saddam did. Not only could he have had them lifted, have you not been paying attention to what was happening with all the Oil for Food money? The US did not do "everything in its power" to have Saddam kick inspectors out. Saddam kicked them out.

substand

Jan 9th, 2005, 1:35 PM

...Simply because Bush used the words in error does not make it so.
--- is that what you called lying in Texas?

=) ... no, i was saying the war wasn't preemptive =)

Had France or Britain "preemtively" attacked Germany for breaking the buildup rules imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, we could have avoided WW2.

---no, that would have made Britain and France the aggressors. It would have only started WW2 sooner because at that time the German military was further advanced, and after the experience of WW1 they did not want a repeat.

When Germany first started rebuilding its military is when it first broke the treaty. I cannot see how it could possibly have been more advanced at that point. And had they acted then, there would probably have been much less bloodshed.

--- You are trying to convince yourself. You are trying to say that Bush jumped the gun and attacked Iraq before Iraq could attack America because Iraq was broke a rule? Yet there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was going to attack anyone, let alone the US. Where is preemptively in any of this?

the preemptively was in quotes because i do not view it as preemption. there was also no evidence that iraq was ever going to comply with the standards set forth that ended the first gulf war.

On the other hand, Bush is supporting Israel who openly refer to the Palestinians as sub humans.

He is also supporting the creation of a palestinian state.

LOL. Did you read that in a press release? For Christ's sake, the US soldier doesn't give a fuck about anyone in country, and the leaders, both military and political care only so much as it affects public perception.

The end result is the same. So what if we developed them for perception, the point is we try not kill innocent civilians. Yes sometimes it happens, but at least we try. Hitler, on the other hand, intentionally killed them.

And to call these terrorists freedom fighters when they are clearly fighting against freedom is ludicrous as well.

And to call these terrorists freedom fighters when they are clearly fighting against freedom is ludicrous as well.

--- you have been brainwashed. The US is occupying their country. Freedom? Leave and let them sort it out...that's freedom.

So it would be good to go in, mess up their country, and just leave? Then you could complain that we have broken international law! I wouldn't give you the pleasure. =)

If they want freedom, let them participate in elections instead of killing those who want to.
---it's a puppet government just like Afghanistan. The US doesn't want a free election, they want a client state.

The US wants a government that will not support international terrorism, and preferably one that allows freedom. If by "client state" you mean "peaceful" or "friends," then yes I suppose we do. I guess every western country is a "client state" of the US, then.

---Yes, it is, as I have kept saying all along, a formula for empire building. You keep focusing on the men rather than the formula. Must be a chip installed that causes this.

hehe.. no chip, i've been scanned. But I'm not just focusing on the men, but the formula as well. Your formula is wrong, and ignores the instability of the time that allowed hitler's rise. No such instability (i'm talking massive) existed in Bush's case, and because of this, I can focus on how the rest of the "similarities" are not strong, or nonexistent. This is done by comparing the men and what they have and are able to do.

All wars have POW and detention camps.

---wars? like the war on terrorism? the war of drugs? the war on <insert noun here>. Those aren't wars. That is a marketing scam because the acts it refers to are in fact crimes.

If you want to view terrorism as a crime, thats up to you. In some cases it is, but when it is supported by nations then it is an act of war. It would be silly if America could send troops without uniforms to attack a people in another country and that country could not retaliate. We used to deal with international terrorism supported by nations as a crime. It didn't work out to well. Now we are treating it as a declaration of war. I guess thats the one instance where Bush has been liberal: he thought outside the old mold.