[Renegade]

Finally, someone replies...  I was beginning to get afraid that everyone agreed with this shit...

Okay.

Maybe Bush isn't yet the Hitler we all think of immediately upon hearing (reading) the name.  But Hitler was in power for many years before becoming this cruel dictator - the transformation to the Nazi Germany we loathe the memory of was a gradual one.  Is it not possible that the Bush administration is just on its way to that place?

Another difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was elected legally... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was elected legally too. Read the constitution and the nations law.

And no Bush isn't "slowly" evolving into Hitler either despite whatever wrongs hes sposidly doing. Thats like me saying Clinton was the same as stalin because of his Kosovo campaigns cause "ppl died". Yes i know its not the same and its completely illogical, but so is the Bush comparison to HITLER.

[Renegade]

Saudi Terrorists hijacked planes, so Bush declared war first on Afghanistan, then later on Iraq.  It is not a war against an ideology, or he'd have moved in on the IRA as well, enemies of his only ally in the War on Terror.  No, Bushco is running a War for Oil.  And his enemy is Brown People, all of whom, including secular Saddam Hussein, he declares to be Islamic fundamentalists, and therefore terrorists, in league with Osama, who by the way has yet to be proven to be the orchestrator of the 9/11 attacks or the supplier of WMDs, Anthrax, or whatever else we're supposed to believe this likely-long-dead villain is behind.

I wouldn't say Bush is the Hitler of the 21st century, as that belittles Bush.  He is much more powerful, more successful, and better supported.  He will retire from office and write his memoirs, and will be remembered by many as a good Christian man who made difficult and unpopular decisions in troubled times.  You had to work pretty hard in Germany in the 50s to find folks who still felt that way about Hitler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God blatently stupid. It doesn't matter if they were saudis, the bottom line is Al Quada was being BLATENTLY organized in Afghanistan. Anyone with even a half a brain can notice the difference. It's like saying oh, the british bombers were british so lets bomb Britain! It doesn't matter where they live or where they are from, what matters is WHERE they are being supported and where they were being trained. Get a clue and come off the stupid Michael Moore propaganda.

Ok so maybe he is running a "war for oil" (not that thats different from any other president we've had but neway) that still doesn't mean what I said was wrong. He made the claim that Bush is killing arabs because of a racist idealogy; you are saying he's doing that for oil, so my point still stands that you can't compare it to Hitlers genocide logistically speaking.

Well ya I agree the Iraq war wasn't a war against Islamic Fundementalists. Agreed with you on that but I never said otherwise anyway.

And Bush isn't Hitler because his policies didn't result in the genocide of up to 11 million people as well as starting the biggest war the world has ever seen that killed or resulted in the killing of tens of millions of people..

[Renegade]

Actually, Hitler was very, very strongly supported in Germany almost all throughout his dictatorship.  It was not until the end of his reign and afterwards that the strong anti-Hitler sentiments began to emerge.  And those who did not support Hitler did not oppose him, albeit out of fear, but still they supported him in their refusal to act against him.

And I'd say Hitler was pretty fucking powerful.  Controlled most of Europe, neh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's cause he took a country in ruins and made it the most powerful country in Europe and prolly the world. Basically if Hitler stopped in 1940 at Czech and Austria or even stopped before going into Russia, he'd prolly be remembered today as a "cruel" but intelligent leader (assuming the holocaust never took place). and yes he was extremely powerful but thats because he was also surrounded by brilliant minds.

[Renegade]

Wasn't there something on The Daily Show about this? Oh, and it's good to see Renegade again, I haven't seen him in ages. Now, where is JM? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lol thanks i think! And part of reason i left was because it was just me arguing with JM in repetetive 1v1s. this one was more enticing since it was more people arguing. Though im sure he'll be here too shortly and ill counter his flawed arguments in here too so no worries!

[Spoon Poetic]

A disclaimer:

Bush isn't Hitler, no. But many are making this comparison - not so much that he is the end-result Hitler right now, but that he's developing towards Hitler-esque... Or something. Many in Europe and some in the US are making this accusation, and I brought it up the topic because I thought it would get some people fired up--as it did--and I was hoping to get some younger people's opinions on it.

Because the truth is, Bush is not Hitler at all. He's the antiChrist. Gosh, everyone knows that.

[Renegade]

People who say that in America are radical liberals and people who say that in Europe will say that about any US president because they hate us as well..

[Spoon Poetic]

Actually, a lot of Europeans liked Clinton.

Generalizations don't look good on you, Renegade.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Now now, don't make generalizations about generalizations.

And no Bush isn't "slowly" evolving into Hitler either despite whatever wrongs hes sposidly doing. Thats like me saying Clinton was the same as stalin because of his Kosovo campaigns cause "ppl died". Yes i know its not the same and its completely illogical, but so is the Bush comparison to HITLER.

I actually agree with Renegade about this.

This post has been edited by Otal Nimrodi: 03 October 2005 - 07:45 PM

[Jordan]

Bush is better compared to his father. Not hitler.

[EwokHunter]

True, true, I prefer George W. Bush than George H.W. Bush, but they are so similar

[Renegade]

True, true, I prefer George W. Bush than George H.W. Bush, but they are so similar

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dunno how neone could prefer jr over sn unless your ubber conservative which you may be so that would explain it i spose.

[civilian_number_two]

God blatently stupid. It doesn't matter if they were saudis, the bottom line is Al Quada was being BLATENTLY organized in Afghanistan. Anyone with even a half a brain can notice the difference. It's like saying oh, the british bombers were british so lets bomb Britain! It doesn't matter where they live or where they are from, what matters is WHERE they are being supported and where they were being trained. Get a clue and come off the stupid Michael Moore propaganda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This isn't Michael Moore: Bush declared Osama and Al Qaeda the culprit without any evidence, the day after the attack. Afghanistan was attacked with zero evidence of Osama or Al Qaeda. I don't know about this "blatent" evidence you're referring to, but it was only a year ago that Osama "confessed" on another one of those bogus videotapes. So if it matters where they were "supported" and "trained," let's remember that despite the FBI's claims, what they did took a lot of courage, little money and hardly any skill; that there has been no followup and therefore no international terrorits conspiracy; and that Bush used a random attack by zealots as an excuse to declare a war that his father hadn't finished a decade earlier. Goal: not to rid the world of terror, or to promote US freedom, but to make Haliburton wealthier.

I don't know what this analogy is to Britain, but I really do see that it ought to matter who these guys were and where they were from. Bush declared them all to be Afghanis and later declared them to be in league with the Muslim extremist government of Iraq. So Bush thought it mattered too.

Disclaimer: The Taliban were a bunch of pricks. If attackng Afghanistan had done the people of Afghanistan any good, I'd say what the fuck? any excuse is good enough. The problem is that after being able to declare one bogus war Bush got off on a roll.

[Renegade]

Actually, a lot of Europeans liked Clinton.

Generalizations don't look good on you, Renegade. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They tolerated him but thats about it. They never liked America none the less but had a general affinity for Clinton himself simply cause he was smooth. They still thought our policies were shit though and hate Bush Jr more because quite frankly hes doing stuff that pisses them off (ie removing dictators who they have contracts with).

[EwokHunter]

I don't know really much about U.S.A. goverment, but I know that Bush family want power and more money, a corrupt family

[Renegade]

This isn't Michael Moore: Bush declared Osama and Al Qaeda the culprit without any evidence, the day after the attack.  Afghanistan was attacked with zero evidence of Osama or Al Qaeda.  I don't know about this "blatent" evidence you're referring to, but it was only a year ago that Osama "confessed" on another one of those bogus videotapes. So if it matters where they were "supported" and "trained," let's remember that despite the FBI's claims, what they did took a lot of courage, little money and hardly any skill; that there has been no followup and therefore no international terrorits conspiracy; and that Bush used a random attack by zealots as an excuse to declare a war that his father hadn't finished a decade earlier.  Goal: not to rid the world of terror, or to promote US freedom, but to make Haliburton wealthier. 

I don't know what this analogy is to Britain, but I really do see that it ought to matter who these guys were and where they were from.  Bush declared them all to be Afghanis and later declared them to be in league with the Muslim extremist government of Iraq.  So Bush thought it mattered too.

Disclaimer: The Taliban were a bunch of pricks.  If attackng Afghanistan had done the people of Afghanistan any good, I'd say what the fuck?  any excuse is good enough.  The problem is that after being able to declare one bogus war Bush got off on a roll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Without any evidence? Osama came out with a video a lil while after taking credit for it... dunno what your talking about. Bush never said it was Osama RIGHT after, he came out and said literally, "those that did this will pay" when he went to ground zero. Simply using common sense it would work too considering Osama and Al quada have taken credit for the last few terrorist attacks, ie. us embassies and the USS Cole.

Who said it wasn't courageous and lacking skill (Though that assertion forgets the idea that careful planning and scheming are relevant but neway). The point is the organization was rooted in Afghanistan including its masterminds therefor the logic is to go there. Why would you attack Saudia Arabia when that wouldn't remove the organization that created the attack... the reason i mentioned britain was because the british bombings were done by british citizens. That doesn't mean you go after arab brits, you go after the people who did it, ie. al quada. The analogy works the same with 9/11.

As for the haliburton thing i can't really argue with illogical claims, next time if you say to make the US richer than atleast it'll make sense. Otherwise you sound like Michael Moore.

I agree, Bush's assertion that Saddam was apart of a massive terrorist conspiracy was bullshit so I full heartly agree with the stupidity of that claim.

The afghanistan war wasn't bogus, it was completely legitimate, and as such was backed by the UN and Europe as well as some middle eastern states. The Iraq War yes, was based on numerous exagerations and fallacies though so agreed.