|| Replies ||

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-16 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The U.S. only loses when the politicians are directing the war, make that "police action". Given free rein, they could dust off anyone very quickly.

User	machine dream | 2007-12-16 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Nope, the Russian army is known to be abysmal at warfare. The US army is mediocre at best. I’m not exactly sure why certain nations own at warfare, but that seems to be the case.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-16 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The current U.S. and Russian troops have elected not to simply kill everyone as the Krauts were so eager to do.

User	machine dream | 2007-12-15 |
Subject	untitled
Message	There’s no point comparing the Sovjet and current US military forces to the Nazis. The Nazis would have dealt with middle-eastern nations without breaking a sweat.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-15 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"capable oponents"? The Nazis didn’t even slow down going through ANY of their "capable oponents" until the U.S. got involved with only the English channel saving the Brits after getting whipped soundly at Dunkirk. The Krauts were early on the doorstep of Moscow before the winter weather, long supply lines and huge piles of dead Russian bodies in the way slowed them down there. NO ONE was in the same league with the Third Reich’s forces until Hitler’s ego screwed them up and they ended up fighting fronts in all directions as far away as Africa and throughout Eastern Europe. Compare geography, Germany as opposed to the U.S., Russia, and the collective British Empire. The end result was quite predictable as soon as Hitler bit off more than he could chew. On the other hand, a few scattered, backwards "ragheads" riding on horseback with bolt action rifles across Afghanistan managed to kick the Soviet Union’s all mighty broad ass because THEY have always been "capable oponents" and have whipped everyone else’s modern army that’s ever been stupid enough to have stumbled into their particular hellhole. Perhaps a slight re-think is in order.

User	machine dream | 2007-12-14 |
Subject	untitled
Message	From Bush’s military test scores his IQ is estimated (above average) at about 115. The Nazi regime had a very high average intellect, with most of the administration having IQs above 130. Combined with Hitler’s achievements this indicates that he had an IQ of 130. So when it comes to intellect, and picking his administration, Hitler clearly has Bush outmatched. To further compare Hitler and Bush you need to look at their ideologies. Hitler was a National Socialist, which is a very clear, and logically sound, ideology. (Just because everyone says the Nazis were crazy doesn’t make it so.) Bush on the other hand doesn’t seem to have much of an ideology nor goals to achieve. Clearly he wants to bring democracy to Iraq, a hopeless mission if you’re familiar with modern history. Hitler simply invaded bordering nations to expand the living space of his nation, which would have been a good investment had he succeeded. So the difference is that Hitler was a relatively intelligent and pragmatic nutcase who took up arms against capable oponents, while Bush is a clueless nutcase who took up arms against a bunch of backward sand niggers. They’re not even in the same league.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-06 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Hitler was a con man and a pirate, pure and simple. His ideology existed only to rationalize his unbound quest for power.

User	mae | 2007-12-05 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Forest Saint - She was not supporting Hitler, merely his ideals. Also, there is a vast difference from admiring someone’s actions and admiring their ideals. Red only values Hitler’s ideas, not his actions. mae - These statements are ludicrous. Upon what do we base our actions, especially on as grand a scale as a national leader does, if not on our ideals? The definition of "ideals" follows: American Heritage Dictionary - i·de·al (î-dç’əl, î-dçl’) Pronunciation Key n. A conception of something in its absolute perfection. One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence. An ultimate object of endeavor; a goal. An honorable or worthy principle or aim. Hitler viewed a world without Jews, Gypsies and others that HE deemed "undesireable" as a perfect world; thus it was an honorable and worthy aim to try to achieve such a world. Hitler did not just bring Germany out of an economic depression. If that was his only goal, there would have been no need to invade Poland, Russia, Denmark, etc., etc. You cannot admire a person’s ideals without also admiring their actions. They go hand in hand. To say that you admire one and not the other is simply not being truthful. And LongPastDead, we value joeyalphabet’s opinion here as much as yours. Just because it’s different than yours or may veer off-topic doesn’t mean we don’t want to hear it. Your last comments to joey reflect the same attitude that you’re accusing him of having. mae

User	LongPastDead | 2007-12-05 |
Subject	You Are Insensitive.
Message	You are an extremely closed minded person. If you are not willing to stay on topic, then I find no reason to speak to you. I made my point and have nothing further to say. Your arguement is half assed. I said NON american history books, woman. And thank for you insulting my culture as a whole. I’m done. You honestly need to learn to listen to some one’s side of the story and consider it. That is one step to becoming a good and respectful debator. Otherwise, you are ignorant hypocrite.

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-12-05 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"She was not supporting Hitler, merely his ideals." What ideas of Hitler’s are admirable? Rearming Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles? Imprisoning and killing dissenters? Kristallnacht? The night of the long knives when he ordered the murders of political enemies in his own party? Bullying the rest of Europe into letting him expand the borders? Invading Poland and starting the war? Oh, right, he did restore national pride. How admirable...

User	Chell | 2007-12-05 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.” -James Thurber “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” -George W. Bush I don’t think Bush is as stupid as he comes across. When you are known for screwing up your sentences, fumbling lines, stumbling over well-known cliche’s, and general bumbling of major concepts, you are more likely to be seen as less-than-evil by the general public. We forgive the mistakes of those we deem incapable of being able to understand the resulting ramifications. We shake our heads and call it tragic. This is not how we should see or treat George Bush. “Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.” - Samuel Butler Has anyone else wondered about the connection between Papa Bush on September 11, 1990 calling the Gulf War an opportunity for the New World Order and the Events in New York 11 years later? Globalization is the name of the game and Iran is in the way. “It is a profitable thing, if one is wise, to seem foolish.” -Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Bush, with his eyes on global capitalism has used 9/11 to scare and rile the American people into needlessly entering Iraq with the knowledge that he needed Iraq to close the circle around Iran- the last country the US needs to topple to bring our “peace” to the Middle East. If you look at a map, we’re already allies with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Syria, and Israel. On July 2nd of this year the United States reaffirmed its commitment for expanding trade ties with Oman and implementing the free trade agreement (FTA) as early as possible. In Turkmenistan, in the Murgab river valley, the airbase at Mary is the largest airbase in Central Asia The US is currently building two $5 Million border stations on the border of Iran and Afghanistan. (http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Turkmenistan.pdf) And we are already in Iraq and Afghanistan. “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” -Mark Twain My father used to remind me that this cliche has two meanings. The silent one could be a fool, but he could also be the most cunning man on earth. And if you are cunning and want to avoid being caught or stopped, it is best to act stupid. Bush loves that we think he’s stupid- there’s no reason to revolt against someone stupid. And if your real plan is to subject American sovereignty to a global government it’s best not to let the American people know what you’re doing or they might try to stop you. “Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything.” -Frank Dane Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction. -George W. Bush Can we become one of those Free nations? Please?

User	silent_death12 | 2007-12-05 |
Subject	untitled
Message	yea....not much to say that hasn’t been said yet on this one. Bush doesn’t have half of the charisma or intelligence though.

User	onetruesmartass | 2007-12-04 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Hm..the similarities between Hitler and Bush are frightening. Oh, hey, I got another one: both assholes have killed members of my family! Did you know that when they were trying to come up with the name of "Homeland Security" they have first tried "Fatherland Security" ? Fuckin’ creepy. I don’t know, I don’t really care. They were/are both horrible, hate-filled, war mongering bastards. I personally think Bush should be charged with war crimes and am still trying to figure out how he’s in office when Clinton was almost impeached for getting head. The only similarity I really want to see between Bush and Hitler is Bush lying in a ditch on the side of the road with a gunshot to his head. *onetruesmartass*

User	Forest Saint | 2007-12-04 |
Subject	Defiance of Nonsense
Message	Mr. Alphabet, with all due respect, you’re argument against Red is sketchy at best. Firstly, you blatantly and rashly assumed that she was an admirer of Hitler himself. That is a gross over-assumption on your part. She was not supporting Hitler, merely his ideals. She stated facts about the two men in accordance with what she knew about each, nothing more. Also, there is a vast difference from admiring someone’s actions and admiring their ideals. Red only values Hitler’s ideas, not his actions. True, his actions were barbaric and executed in a way unfitting for any human, yet they were ideologically understandable. Hitler’s anger was not entirely based on Germany’s humiliation, but was rooted in his anti-Semitics. The whole thing that started his anti-Semitism was a chance meeting in Vienna. He describes his transformation of his thinking regarding the Jews in Mein Kampf. "Once, as I was strolling through the inner city, I suddenly encountered an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought." "For, to be sure, they had not looked like that in Linz. I observed the man furtively and cautiously, but the longer I stared at this foreign face, scrutinizing feature for feature, the more my first question assumed a new form: is this a German?" Vienna was almost characterized by anti-Semitism, with a particularly zealous anti-Semite, Mayor Karl Lueger. It was from frequent exposure to anti-Semitism and listening to Lueger’s speeches, which he admired for their ability to enrapture the public, which led to his aforementioned change in thinking. Every war may not be about ideals, but the one Hitler caused certainly was. Hitler believed so much in Nietzsche’s “Ubermench” theory, that he thought other races were inevitably inferior, thus the idea of the ‘Aryan’ or supreme race was created. It was his unyielding belief in the Aryan race and the love for his country that he decided to attain more land or Lebensraum for them. He thought of the Jews of the Aryan’s highest threat, evidently caused by his deep-sated hatred of them. It was his ideal of creating and expanding a race of Ubermench to usher the world into a new, unified dominion.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-04 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Nah, Hitler planned for a 1000 year Reich. Bush couldn’t plan his way around a coffee table.

User	Chell | 2007-12-04 |
Subject	More differences...
Message	Bush –vs- Hitler In their own words: “Strength lies not in defense but in attack” -Adolf Hitler -vs- Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past…We cannot let our enemies strike first.” –George Bush “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator” -Adolf Hitler -vs- “I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I’m gonna do it." –George Bush “Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless.” –Adolph Hitler -vs- “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.” -George Bush “The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence” –Adolph Hitler -vs- “Iraqi leaders understand that their success will require US political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America.” –George Bush “The art of leadership. . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . .” –Adolph Hitler -vs- America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. –George Bush The German people are not a warlike nation. It is a soldierly one, which means it does not want a war, but does not fear it. It loves peace but also loves its honor and freedom. –Adolph Hitler -vs- As Americans, we want peace.. we work and sacrifice for peace. –George Bush “The world must know that this administration will not blink in the face of danger, and will not tire when it comes to completing the missions that we said we would do.” -George Bush There ought to be limits to freedom. –George Bush If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier...just so long as I’m the dictator. -George Bush One tangent- If -in June of next year- the Supreme Court rules that the second amendment only applies to the militia and not people in general, we could live to see the first time the American population would have no way of overthrowing its government if it deems it necessary. And when you can’t fight for the right to live against a corrupt government, the government gets to decide when, where, and why you die.. “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their fall by doing so.” Adolph Hitler

User	Chell | 2007-12-04 |
Subject	Differences...
Message	The differences between George Bush and Adolph Hitler: His anger (and the country’s) was based on Germany’s humiliation after WWI by the Allies. -vs- Bush’s anger (and the country’s) was based on America’s humiliation (in it’s lax security measures and slow response times) after 9/11 by Muslim extremists. --- It was also a product of the times - the 30s were about the communists versus the socialists, and whose worldview would prevail, not only in Germany but all over Europe (as in Spain and Italy), Asia (China) and the U.S. (which would come back to haunt so many during the Red Scare of the 50s), -vs.- It was also a product of the times – the ought’s (01-09) were about American Christian capitalist ideals versus Mid-East Muslim religious ideals, and whose worldview would prevail, not only in Germany but all over Europe (as in Spain and Italy), Asia (China) and the U.S. (which could haunt so many if we enter create a Green Scare after the onset of WWIII), --- all of which was interrupted when the market crashed in ’29. -vs- 11/27/07 -- Goldman Sachs economists on Tuesday said… the worsening housing downturn has pushed the risk of a U.S. recession in 2008 to 40%-45%, from around 30% previously," Goldman said. (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/goldman-ups-us-08-recession/story.aspx?guid=%7BDF49B61B-C52A-4522-9B91-16DA4C906864%7D) --- Most people were on one side or the other, especially after the Great Depression began and they were out of jobs. -vs- Most people were on one side or the other (republican-v-democrat, illegal aliens-v-patriots, etc. Global economy-v-National sovereignty, pro –vs- anti-Iraq war, abortion, homosexual rights) which will only get worse after the Next Great Depression begins and American’s will be out of jobs. --- The Jews became a convenient scapegoat when the Depression hit Germany and Germany’s shaky economy was pretty much obliterated. -vs- The Muslims and illegal aliens will become the convenient scapegoats when the Depression hits (when China sanctions our economy into the ground over our mid-east meddling and our bluster about the US Navy being turned from China’s ports) and our shaky economy will be pretty much obliterated. --- He was a brutal, mad butcher who murdered anyone he disagreed with or got in his way, -vs- "Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," -George Bush. "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." – George Bush. “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” –George Bush. “This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.” –George Bush. ---

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-12-04 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I don’t admire Hitler for anything he did, and I can’t understand anyone who does. His anger (and the country’s) was based on Germany’s humiliation after WWI by the Allies. It was also a product of the times - the 30s were about the communists versus the socialists, and whose worldview would prevail, not only in Germany but all over Europe (as in Spain and Italy), Asia (China) and the U.S. (which would come back to haunt so many during the Red Scare of the 50s), all of which was interrupted when the market crashed in ’29. Most people were on one side or the other, especially after the Great Depression began and they were out of jobs. The Jews became a convenient scapegoat when the Depression hit Germany and Germany’s shaky economy was pretty much obliterated. See? I have actually read a history book or two. And since when is ANY war about ideals? It’s about grabbing power (economic, political, whatever) for oneself. WWII wasn’t about ideals for America - it was about a threat to our interests from Japan and Germany. It was about ensuring our power in the world, not about any ideal of fighting fascists - it was just sold that way to the public, the same way the Cold War that followed was, and the ’War on Terror’ today.

User	LongPastDead | 2007-12-04 |
Subject	Your Not Listening
Message	I value his ideas, not the way he enforced his ideas. Did I not point out that they weren’t humane? I want to say I did. Yes, that is exactly what I said. "Albeit, he didn’t accomplish these things in the most humane way (as humane as mass genocide can get), he still had knowledge, intelligence, and an undying love for his country." And I am SO sick of people concentrating on just the Jews and the Gypsies. He also killed mass amounts of Swedish, Dutch, French, American, African American, and much more. As a matter of fact he killed the others double the amount that he killed Jews or Gypsies. Get over it. You are taking everything i say completely out of context. I was merely poiting out the massive differences between A. Hitler and G. Bush when it comes to war, and put my ideals of war out there. That is the whole point of this subject, now isn’t it? I never said I liked Castro or anything like that. I will admit that I liked the fact that Hitler’s ideas started out with wanting to take control of the German economy BACK from the Jewish population of Germany. He despised them because of that, not because of their religion. You all need to pick up a few non american history books, read a little bit of Mein Camf and figure out the other side of the story before you decide to attack some one. Yes, he killed a mass majority. He did not do it for the reason YOU, Joey, are stating. Now, please. I didn’t jump on your for what you believe or who you admire. Let’s get back on topic.

User	joeyalphabet | 2007-12-04 |
Subject	untitled
Message	You are an admirer of Hitler? I find your argument in support of Hitler staggering to say the least. He was a brutal, mad butcher who murdered anyone he disagreed with or got in his way, started a war in which 60 MILLION people were killed, and decmiated the Jews and Gypsies. Do you also admire Milosovich, Stalin, Idi Amin, Allende, Castro, Pol Pot, and all those other dictators who have butchered millions through the 20th century?