A little list for your amusement

A

Anonymous

Guest
This is a little post I made on another forum, but I'd be interested what people think here as well.

Just to prove why I can't take political rethorics seriously, a list of Hitler comparisons I remember since 1995:

1995: Jaques Chirac is compared to Hitler for his nuclear tests in the South Seas
1999: Milosevic is compared to Hitler by western nations
1999: Milosevic compares western nations to nazi Germany
2000: Some Bavarian fool compares German chancellor Schroeder to Hitler for his "final solution" on banning nuclear power in Germany
2001: First Sharon-Hitler comparisons
2001: First Bush-Hitler comparisons
2002: Bush compares Saddam to Hitler
2002: German minister of justice compares Bush and Thatcher to Hitler; Bush-Hitler comparisons are frequent to this day

Tear this apart all you want, though I'd appreciate additions.

Note that the comparisons are not bound to my opinion.
 

Maidenfreak

Ancient Mariner
[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Jul 22 2004, 11:21 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Jul 22 2004, 11:21 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] 2000: Some Bavarian fool compares German chancellor Schroeder to Hitler for his "final solution" on banning nuclear power in Germany
[/quote]
not bound to your opinion, huh? [!--emo&:lol:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/lol[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'lol[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--]
Although there's hardly a smart bavarian, is there? [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]

Anyway, you're right, Hitler comparisions are quite popular - and most of the time, they're wrong. But that's a very old rhetorical trick, defaming your opponent - and obviously calling someone the "new Hitler" is kinda effective. Just look at all that stupid anti-americanism that is present in Germany at the moment - you could ask any 16 year old what he thinks of America and the answer would be "they're shit, they start wars... bla", but just try to discuss with them, they don't have a single argument why America is really that bad or why Germany would be any better... And that all comes from propaganda like that - it's quite easy to manipulate ppl with strong expressions like "he's like Hitler" - the smarter ppl will laugh about it, but they're a minority, at least it seems to me like that.
ah, well, enough of that rant...

p.S.: I just added you to my Icq list [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
Before Hitler, it was Napoleon.
Before Napoleon, it was Ivan the Terrible or George III, or Genghis Khan...

Anyway, you get the idea.

Although I am a firm supporter of Bush-Hitler comparisons, and I would like to consider myself both intelligent and informed. The two really do have some very similar traits.

Milosevic, somewhat. He could more be compared to other Nazi leaders, rather than Hitler. He simply didn't have the rhetoric portion down.

And Perun, I too have added you to my ICQ.
 

infliction

Invader
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Although I am a firm supporter of Bush-Hitler comparisons, and I would like to consider myself both intelligent and informed. The two really do have some very similar traits.
[/quote]

Very similar traits? Will you please explain.


For Perun, legalize what? (just wondering)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]For Perun, legalize what? (just wondering)[/quote]

Dunno. Figured my avatar looked quite LSDish so I just put a pro-drug slogan under it. I don't take any drugs myself.
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
Both Hitler and Bush have used powerful rhetoric about attacks against their nation (Hitler citing the too-harsh Treaty of Versailles; Bush the 9/11 terror attacks) to legalize laws and acts that discriminate against members of their populace and remove personal freedoms. In Bush's case, this is the 2001 Patriot Act that violates about 8 Constitutional Amendments; Hitler's case it is the Nuremburg Laws that removed basic freedoms from the Jews.

Both men were insistant on building their nation's base of power. Bush is the first US president to increase the American nuclear arsenal in a long time; he refuses to sign peace treaties that might threaten his nation's power base overseas (IE the anti-landmine treaty). Hitler, of course, aggragated his power in secret; the creation of the Luftwaffe, launching of more fleets of U-Boats, the construction of superbattleships Bismarck and Tirpitz.

Both men have conquered/annexed soverign states under the banner of peace. Hitler's brand was reunification/Anschluss, by which he took over Austria, the Sudetenland, and then Czechoslovakia. Bush's brand has been anti-terrorism, which he's used to smash Afghanistan and Iraq.

Both men were racist. Bush against Arabs (except those who give his daddy money, even if they help blow up his country); Hitler against Jews (in reality, he was REALLY against Jews).

That ought to do to go on.
 

Taffy

Trooper
the difference between hitler & GWB is that gwb is lacking the odd brain cell here and there. hitler, for all his numerous faults was a somewhat intelligent man, bush, on the other hand, wouldn't be able to put a model aircraft together let alone an entire air force in secret. Anyway, I've just spent the last few hours debating why bush is a complete arse, and I'm too knackered now to carry on, but before I leave, any americans in here, do the world a favour and get him out of power, I really can't be bothered with a uranium breakfast any time soon.

Taffy
 

IronDuke

Ancient Mariner
2004: IronDuke compares Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe to Hitler.


If you don't know why, do some reseach. You'll be frightened.
 

infliction

Invader
OK LC, now I see your point. Listening to both Kerry and Bush..... I couldn't say which one I would rather have in there.

But I do have a question... what, if anythng,should have been done about Saddam? This is just a question and if anybody answers it, don't let your love or hate for the Bush get in the way.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Saddam should be tried at Den Haag and locked away in a well-guarded prison for the rest of his life. He should labour for the next ten years or so and then spend the rest of his life in a cell where he would probably write his memoirs or another kitsch love novel.
The same should be done to Bush.
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
[!--QuoteBegin-infliction+Jul 23 2004, 02:30 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(infliction @ Jul 23 2004, 02:30 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] OK LC, now I see your point.  Listening to both Kerry and Bush..... I couldn't say which one I would rather have in there. [/quote]
What? How can you say that? John Kerry might not be the best candidate to ever run for president, but he's way better than Bush. At least he's not sitting up there promising to continue to ruin the US's economy, or pledging to keep the soldiers in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein should be turned over to the World Court at the Hague, just like Slobodan Milosevic was.
 

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Jul 23 2004, 09:54 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Jul 23 2004, 09:54 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Saddam Hussein should be turned over to the World Court at the Hague, just like Slobodan Milosevic was. [/quote]
The same goes for bush*, when he's eventually kicked out of office.
It'll never happen of course, but it should.
 

infliction

Invader
No, now wait a minute. I think that you misread the question...... or perhaps I implied too much. What I meant is for you to say how you would have gone about the whole matter of doing what with Saddam. I didn't intend for you to reply as to what you think should be done with him now that he is captured. Your answer, to me, is stated in a manner which implies that you already had him and what you would now want done to him.
Specifically, I am looking as to how you would have gone about 'capturing' Saddam. Moreover, what reason(s) would you give to go after him if you did go after him? Put yourself in that position. There may be several reasons for why the US happens to dig it's nose into affairs of other countries, and maybe those base reasons would be sprinkled with humanitarian ones, but the fact is that the US is in the situation of: 'your damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.' I think that this is something that many fail to recognize.
Before I continue, I want to tell you that I am not for the war. BUT, I do believe that whatever is started has to be finished. The country (Iraq) is now war torn and in shambles..... and it can't be left like that. Or is it that people fail to see that ther is an inherent problem with just 'pulling the troops out'?
Loose Cannon, you might have forgotten more history than I will ever know, so the proper hoorahs and applause to you. Can you think of any other times that 'nobody' intervened and there was a genocide/slaughter? Yeah, take a look at some history between Turkey and Armenia and for a refresher you can go to the thing with the Serbs a few years back. But, I would like for you to keep in mind why the US 'entered' some wars as well. You should also keep in mind that Canada isn't thoroughly cleansed from any of the blood shed in the Mid-East.

Now you may chuckle at the comparison, but it's like a Spider-Man effect in that a guy (in this case the US) acquires powers and....... he has no reponsibilities? Yeah, he may let this robber go now but would there be any implications if he did? Yes, there are some responsibilities..... or do you not agree? This, is what I am talking about. It is really simple to criticize. And sorry, but I don't take the opinions too seriously of countries that have little relevance to global affairs when their own country is in shambles (no offense Perun). Hopefully you can correct my view on this as I only have but few sites that offer prosperous information on your country (also, Laura isn't too good of a representative.) I think that it is funny that people hate the US so much, but if given the opportunity, they'll want to come here. NO, that doesn't include the prosperous industrialized nations.....

I only ask you to think of the fact that there may be more to it than we will really ever know. What I mean is why didn't the UN support? Really? Sure you may have your reasons which you might have gathered and those reasons really support your view..... but did you ignore other possibilites? You can't just dabble with something that appeals to you and say 'this is it'.

I look at the candidates for presidency and think that there has got to be someone else..... why can't McCain run? I don't like Cheney and I would prefer Edwards to Kerry. That's why I say that I wouldn't have either one. I happen to watch C-Span frequently (not so much now that school is back in) and I tried to make time to watch what the Parliament had going on, especially on those days before the invasion. My opinion about Blair is that he is a phenomenal speaker. BUT, I know very little of him and now it seems that he isn't all too popular in England. The truth of the matter is, they are all politicians and seldom are they truthful.
Do you ever think that war happens to be a means to peace? Now it's a funny notion to toy with I know, and maybe even a bit crazy. It is crazy...... but just think how this one alone has brought people together.

In sum, I just ask you to put those shoes on and tell me what your plan would have been? You don't invade, people die and the world is against you because you have the power and don't do anything. You do invade, people die, and the world is against you because you did. Honestly, I think that it was a lose lose situation for the Bush - he's damned if he did and damned if he didn't. I don' t think that the outcome of this election will have all that much to do with terrorist threats. He lost it two years ago!

Peace!

PS: I would like to take part in all of these interesting threads...... but I am so damn busy. If you happen to reply to this, I might not reply until next weekend...... (school, full-time job, semi-pro band). I don't see how most of you have a post in this everyday and at what seems to be at any time of the day - I envy you!
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
Alright. I see your point right now, infliction. I think I can come up with a coherant answer. By the way, I usually only spend about 15 minutes a day on this board. I type fairly quickly, you see.

The real answer about what to do with Saddam Hussein's Iraq is very, very simple. In no way was anyone entitled to invade Iraq, unless they were preparing to a) launch an attack on another sovereign nations or [!--emo&B)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/cool.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'cool.gif\' /][!--endemo--] preparing to destroy a significant portion of their own population. This is the genocide to which you refer.

In previous cases of genocide, we have intervened (by "We" I mean the West). I will point out the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo by Slobodan Milosevic, and I will point to the 94-95 case in Rwanda. The entire West is appalled by the thought of genocide, because of our aquiescence in the Holocaust. By that I mean by the fact that we refused to accept Jews into our own country when they fled Germany in the '30s; forcing them to instead flee to countries that would not be outside the Wehrmacht's control for long.

In the case of invasion of other nations, I'll point to the last time someone ACTUALLY invaded another country - Saddam again, in 1990. Now, we came to the rescue because of oil, but, the fact remains that we were obligated in that point to intervene to liberate the people of Kuwait.

THIS is when that "obligation" you speak of comes into play. Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War ran a very smooth government. Literacy rates were higher than most other countries in the region (not saying much, but something), health care, although two-tier, was free. Yes, he was corrupt, and he murdered hundreds, but honestly, the US has supported many worse dictators in the past.

When the people of Iraq were ready to get rid of their dictator they would have. America had no reason to think otherwise. In fact, they should have encouraged the people of Iraq to follow that path - those who earn freedom oft treasure it most, as seen in the case of the USA itself. Sadly, the great democratic nation seems to love keeping dictators afloat. Saddam, remember, was one of these till he went crusading in Kuwait. The genocide that he committed was committed with US weapons.

The West's responsibilities lie in:
a) helping the undeveloped and developing nations to do so in an environmentally-safe manner. We've learned not to pollute (as much); we have to make sure places like India, Indonesia, Bangladesh do the same.
[!--emo&B)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/cool.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'cool.gif\' /][!--endemo--] intervening to maintain the sovereignty of other UN member states. That's what the UN is for, folks. To decide when and where aid should go. Bilateral aid treaties are a bogus way for Western nations to win favour in developing countries.
c) sending in peacekeepers when asked for. But when peacekeepers are requested, they need to be prepared for what they'll be asked to do. No more Rwandas. But peacekeepers NEED to be requested, and they need to do their job, no more.
 

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Jul 24 2004, 08:50 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Jul 24 2004, 08:50 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] The West's responsibilities lie in:
a) helping the undeveloped and developing nations to do so in an environmentally-safe manner.  We've learned not to pollute (as much); we have to make sure places like India, Indonesia, Bangladesh do the same. [/quote]
Nice post. I'd just clarify your point a to include African countries - admittedly they're not as far along as SE Asia but they'll be getting there in a couple decades at most, so we might as well start helping them now (or at least soon).

Also, "helping developing nations" ought to include spreading medical knowledge and tech, especially doing more to stop AIDS in Africa.
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
Definately true. Forgive my lack of foresight. I included those nations only because they are so very populous. And naturally, stopping the spread of AIDS has to be one of our highest priorities.
 

infliction

Invader
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]When the people of Iraq were ready to get rid of their dictator they would have. America had no reason to think otherwise. In fact, they should have encouraged the people of Iraq to follow that path - [/quote]

Yeah, but the dichotomous relationship withstanding is that:
1) the US had abandoned the Kurds in the first Gulf invasion..... would they (not this group specifically but the population as a whole) trust the US again? This is, of course, the US' own fault. I do agree with you in a way, but that same maneuver has backfired before (ie: Iran vs. USSR).
2) many didn't denounce the dicatator until they had proof that he was captured (as far as I know.)

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]those who earn freedom oft treasure it most, as seen in the case of the USA itself[/quote]
A lamentable thought, but this used to be true. It's is disgusting to see how so many take it all for granted. I know what you mean..... I just think that this no longer applies to the US.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]especially doing more to stop AIDS in Africa. [/quote]
What more can be done but to cut their penis off?! They are being eduacated on it and there is ongoing study of/for a possible cure. It's not as easy as that. I think that it goes deeper into the condition of the nation and its infrastructure.

Radical thought #2: Ever heard of the Gaia Hypothesis? If so, ever wonder if the AIDS virus would be a part of it?
 

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
[!--QuoteBegin-infliction+Jul 25 2004, 02:02 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(infliction @ Jul 25 2004, 02:02 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] What more can be done but to cut their penis off?!  They are being eduacated on it and there is ongoing study of/for a possible cure.  It's not as easy as that.  I think that it goes deeper into the condition of the nation and its infrastructure. 

Radical thought #2:  Ever heard of the Gaia Hypothesis?  If so, ever wonder if the AIDS virus would be a part of it? [/quote]
I don't have any specific ideas about what could be done, though I am sure that the enormous US military budget is a higher priority for bush* than using that money to try and save innocent lives.

While AIDS is an STD and is transmitted that way, that's not how everyone gets it. Over half the children born in Botswana in the last five years have been born with AIDS, transmitted from the mother during pregnancy. So systematic castration could alleviate the problem, but would not eliminate it. It would also create other problems, like millions of men going insane because they can't get laid.

Also, I think you're right about the Gaia concept. Had humans never developed technology, then AIDS might have been simply a natural disease to control our population. But we have developed technology, and it seems wrong to me to let people die who can maybe be saved.
 
Top