Debate and Discussion

Bush Vs. Hitler: Relevent Comparison?
ozoneocean at 12:51PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,787
joined: 1-2-2006
Proved oil reserves are a different thing. I do know that much, knowing as I do quite a few people in the business. (oil exploration, etc.)

And your argument is still stupid. You miss out the fact that Iraq was the easiest target in the world to attack, because not only could you make up an excuse that at least a few morons would believe, Iraq had a pathetic military (due to over 10 years of sanctions), US had total air dominance, and Iraq couldn't call on any allies or support what so ever.
You idea of attacking Saudi, or Canada instead if energy reserves were a motive is just plane retarded.
-A lion would much rather attack a sick baby zebra than an adult hippopotamus. :)

Of course there were secondary objectives besides a guaranteed energy reserve: A staging post in the Middle East for any future action against tougher enemies like Iraq or Syria, they can also more easily intimidate Suadi Arabia if they want to get cute with oil prices.
It's good old fashioned colonial imperialism… More Mussolini style than Hitler though.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Gamers Anonymous at 1:58PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 23
joined: 5-24-2006
ozoneocean
Proved oil reserves are a different thing. I do know that much, knowing as I do quite a few people in the business. (oil exploration, etc.)

And your argument is still stupid. You miss out the fact that Iraq was the easiest target in the world to attack, because not only could you make up an excuse that at least a few morons would believe, Iraq had a pathetic military (due to over 10 years of sanctions), US had total air dominance, and Iraq couldn't call on any allies or support what so ever.
You idea of attacking Saudi, or Canada instead if energy reserves were a motive is just plane retarded.
-A lion would much rather attack a sick baby zebra than an adult hippopotamus. :)
Easy target to attack….yeah, like Kuwait would have been tough. Not to mention how easy it would be to dominate Venezuela due to its location. Iraq's military wasn't exactly pathetic. It was because ours was so dominant that we wiped out their standing armies so quickly. They had 10 years of sanctions on them….big deal….Clinton didn't enforce them. We have no air dominance in that we don't use it. We're fighting a ground war in Iraq, a highly unnecessary ground war. Instead of bombing an enemy outpost suffering no casualties, we send our boys into a firefight. This war is necessary, but the way we fight it is completely idiotic. And you're little line about Iraq's allies…..Iraq had plenty of allies coming over the border from Syria and Iran.

Oh, and how are proved oil reserves a different thing? That's what we're talking about.

ozoneocean
Of course there were secondary objectives besides a guaranteed energy reserve: A staging post in the Middle East for any future action against tougher enemies like Iraq or Syria, they can also more easily intimidate Suadi Arabia if they want to get cute with oil prices.
It's good old fashioned colonial imperialism… More Mussolini style than Hitler though.

I don't think you understand the concept of the words “we're leaving when Iraq can defend itself”. We're not staying there at all.

Oh yeah, intimidate Saudi…that's freakin brilliant logic there. Why don't we just cruise missile the OPEC headquarters while we're at it?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:32PM
ozoneocean at 2:49PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,787
joined: 1-2-2006
Ok, so you don't know about the difference between a war and an occupation, strategy, oil reserves, Iraq, current events, or anything basically.
This argument is over for me. :)
I've put my point, I won't get into a slanging match with you as well as trying to bring you up to speed on other things. That's too hard and not fun.

Basically we disagree generally. But we agree that Bush isn't like Hitler.
I'm out.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Gamers Anonymous at 4:12PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 23
joined: 5-24-2006
ozoneocean
Ok, so you don't know about the difference between a war and an occupation, strategy, oil reserves, Iraq, current events, or anything basically.
This argument is over for me. :)
I've put my point, I won't get into a slanging match with you as well as trying to bring you up to speed on other things. That's too hard and not fun.

Basically we disagree generally. But we agree that Bush isn't like Hitler.
I'm out.


The argument is over because you say it is. Of course, I (and others) can interpret that as you admitting that you know you're wrong. Tis sad, but I can only speculate on that.


….Liberalism is a mental disorder.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:32PM
ozoneocean at 4:28PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,787
joined: 1-2-2006
Gamers Anonymous
The argument is over because you say it is.
Nope, I said it's over for me. You can keep going if you like :)
Gamers Anonymous
….Liberalism is a mental disorder.
That just proves how right I was.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Gamers Anonymous at 4:48PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 23
joined: 5-24-2006
ozoneocean
Gamers Anonymous
….Liberalism is a mental disorder.
That just proves how right I was.

Sir, out of morbid curiosity, do you read the New York Times?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:32PM
ozoneocean at 4:55PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,787
joined: 1-2-2006
Gamers Anonymous
Sir, out of morbid curiosity, do you read the New York Times?
No. And you don't need to call me “sir”.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
ccs1989 at 5:07PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
Gamers Anonymous
Easy target to attack….yeah, like Kuwait would have been tough. Not to mention how easy it would be to dominate Venezuela due to its location.
However we wouldn't have been able to dominate Venezuela because we wouldn't be able to come up with a rational explanation for it, and then America would be as bad as Nazi Germany (invading other countries for resources when they haven't done anything to hurt us).

Basically Iraq was hit because it's in the Middle East, and when Bush says Bin Laden is in the Middle East, Americans think that that means every country is fair game, so invading Iraq is then justified in their eyes.



Iraq's military wasn't exactly pathetic. It was because ours was so dominant that we wiped out their standing armies so quickly. They had 10 years of sanctions on them….big deal….Clinton didn't enforce them. We have no air dominance in that we don't use it. We're fighting a ground war in Iraq, a highly unnecessary ground war. Instead of bombing an enemy outpost suffering no casualties, we send our boys into a firefight. This war is necessary, but the way we fight it is completely idiotic. And you're little line about Iraq's allies…..Iraq had plenty of allies coming over the border from Syria and Iran.

So you agree that our strategy when it comes to Iraq is stupid? Then why do you support Bush? He's the one who make the decision.


I don't think you understand the concept of the words “we're leaving when Iraq can defend itself”. We're not staying there at all.

Ever heard of the Spanish-American War? During it, the US used “freeing Cuba from Spain” as the reason to go into the war. Then, once we beat Spain, we “freed” Cuba. Only notice we still have a military base, Guantanamo Bay, there. Huh. Isn't that interesting? Even if the US ‘leaves’ a country, it doesn't mean that it won't keep a base of power there. In Iraq we'll probably set up a military base or two, and if they ever become stable make them sign an agreement to give the US a lot of their oil. A win-win situation for us. Not so nice for them. But the way the Iraq War is going it doesn't look like we'll ever be able to do anything to recoup our losses. It's another Vietnam.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Real mature there, kid.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Gamers Anonymous at 6:11PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 23
joined: 5-24-2006
ccs1989
Gamers Anonymous
Easy target to attack….yeah, like Kuwait would have been tough. Not to mention how easy it would be to dominate Venezuela due to its location.
However we wouldn't have been able to dominate Venezuela because we wouldn't be able to come up with a rational explanation for it, and then America would be as bad as Nazi Germany (invading other countries for resources when they haven't done anything to hurt us).

Basically Iraq was hit because it's in the Middle East, and when Bush says Bin Laden is in the Middle East, Americans think that that means every country is fair game, so invading Iraq is then justified in their eyes.

If that were the case, we'd be attacking Pakistan. That is where Bin Laden is believed to be at this time.


ccs1989
Iraq's military wasn't exactly pathetic. It was because ours was so dominant that we wiped out their standing armies so quickly. They had 10 years of sanctions on them….big deal….Clinton didn't enforce them. We have no air dominance in that we don't use it. We're fighting a ground war in Iraq, a highly unnecessary ground war. Instead of bombing an enemy outpost suffering no casualties, we send our boys into a firefight. This war is necessary, but the way we fight it is completely idiotic. And you're little line about Iraq's allies…..Iraq had plenty of allies coming over the border from Syria and Iran.

So you agree that our strategy when it comes to Iraq is stupid? Then why do you support Bush? He's the one who make the decision.

It's stupid in the method we are fighting it. Also, at no point did I voice any support for George Bush. You're trying to put words in my mouth.

ccs1989
I don't think you understand the concept of the words “we're leaving when Iraq can defend itself”. We're not staying there at all.

Ever heard of the Spanish-American War? During it, the US used “freeing Cuba from Spain” as the reason to go into the war. Then, once we beat Spain, we “freed” Cuba. Only notice we still have a military base, Guantanamo Bay, there. Huh. Isn't that interesting? Even if the US ‘leaves’ a country, it doesn't mean that it won't keep a base of power there. In Iraq we'll probably set up a military base or two, and if they ever become stable make them sign an agreement to give the US a lot of their oil. A win-win situation for us. Not so nice for them. But the way the Iraq War is going it doesn't look like we'll ever be able to do anything to recoup our losses. It's another Vietnam.

We leave behind a detachment of troops in every war in every country to ensure security. There will be nothing special about doing the same in Iraq given the instability of the region. We won't be getting any oil. Where do you people get this crap?

And don't make unfounded comparisons between this war and Vietnam. They are nothing alike in any way.

ccs1989
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Real mature there, kid.

Funny you should say that. Funny you should be oblivious to how it has ruined this country.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:32PM
Rich at 6:23PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
LOL! The republicon artists are sending their lackeys in to attack sane thought and reason!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:06PM
Gamers Anonymous at 9:34PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 23
joined: 5-24-2006
Rich
LOL! The republicon artists are sending their lackeys in to attack sane thought and reason!

Yeah….right…..both the republicans and democrats can bite me. I don't like any of them. Neither party is capable of rational decision making.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:32PM
ccs1989 at 9:33AM, Oct. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
Gamers Anonymous
If that were the case, we'd be attacking Pakistan. That is where Bin Laden is believed to be at this time.

We have troops in Pakistan (my cousin is serving over there at the moment) but not nearly enough. We should have never invaded Iraq, because occupying it just wastes troops there. So why are we there? Certaintly not to “bring Democracy to the Middle East”. Nope, we're doing it for financial reasons, but now things are going badly and the Bush administration wants to make beleve everything is peachy-keen.


It's stupid in the method we are fighting it. Also, at no point did I voice any support for George Bush. You're trying to put words in my mouth.

Well you've already made clear that you think Bin Laden is in Pakistan. So if we're not in Iraq for oil, or for Bin Laden, then why are we there?

We leave behind a detachment of troops in every war in every country to ensure security. There will be nothing special about doing the same in Iraq given the instability of the region. We won't be getting any oil. Where do you people get this crap?

Haliburton already has contracts to get oil from Iraq. So why our our troops staying there? Is it to ensure peace for the people, or to insure peace for the oil companies?

And don't make unfounded comparisons between this war and Vietnam. They are nothing alike in any way.

That's sort of true. We had a better reason to go into Veitnam then we did to go into Iraq. However at the same time we're losing this war and our leaders have no idea what they're doing.

Funny you should say that. Funny you should be oblivious to how it has ruined this country.

If I remember correctly, the founding fathers were pretty darn liberal. It's true that Washington wanted to balance out democracy by adding republicanism in there, but then people like Thoman Jefferson, Bejamin Franklin, and Patrick Henry were very liberal. You should remember the words of some very intelligent people of the past before you go shooting off your mouth about liberalism ruining this country.

“A man who trades his freedom for security will find that he inherits neither.”
-Benjamin Franklin.

Funny, the Patriot Act did just that.

“We must guard against the military-industrial complex.”
-Eisenhower.

And yet we have an ex-Haliburton CEO as vice-president giving no-bid contracts to his old company, allowing them to take advantage of a country we invaded for no reason.

http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Gamers Anonymous at 2:19PM, Oct. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 23
joined: 5-24-2006
ccs1989
Well you've already made clear that you think Bin Laden is in Pakistan. So if we're not in Iraq for oil, or for Bin Laden, then why are we there?

To knock off our ‘good buddy’ Saddam and disarm his corrupt regime.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5C%5CSpecialReports%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200410%5C%5CSPE20041004a.html
]info link

ccs1989
We leave behind a detachment of troops in every war in every country to ensure security. There will be nothing special about doing the same in Iraq given the instability of the region. We won't be getting any oil. Where do you people get this crap?

Haliburton already has contracts to get oil from Iraq. So why our our troops staying there? Is it to ensure peace for the people, or to insure peace for the oil companies?

Haliburton has contracts….as in, they are receiving oil as payment. The way people word, they make it seem like we're taking oil for free.


ccs1989
Funny you should say that. Funny you should be oblivious to how it has ruined this country.

If I remember correctly, the founding fathers were pretty darn liberal. It's true that Washington wanted to balance out democracy by adding republicanism in there, but then people like Thoman Jefferson, Bejamin Franklin, and Patrick Henry were very liberal. You should remember the words of some very intelligent people of the past before you go shooting off your mouth about liberalism ruining this country.

“A man who trades his freedom for security will find that he inherits neither.”
-Benjamin Franklin.

Funny, the Patriot Act did just that.

“We must guard against the military-industrial complex.”
-Eisenhower.

And yet we have an ex-Haliburton CEO as vice-president giving no-bid contracts to his old company, allowing them to take advantage of a country we invaded for no reason.

Your point here fails on many levels. Liberalism has changed meaning many times over the years. Today's is far from being that of the late 1700's. Thomas Jefferson wasn't liberal. He held to an ideology known as republicanism. Franklin was pro-war and held to republicanism. Patrick Henry, the same.

That no-bid contract you refer to was a an option on another contract with KBR. It was basicly a retainer optioned by the Army for convenience.

That country we invaded for no reason had a crazed dictator that needed to be removed from power; for years he violated sanctions placed on him after the Gulf War that Clinton failed to enforce, placing that responsibility on the Bush Administration. Iraq had illegal weapons. Some have been found. Iraq's former chief of air force has stated that the nuclear weapons were flown to Syria several months before the war began. Iraq possessed other illegal arms such as two MiG-29 jets that were found buried out in the desert. Completely unnecessary? What a load of crap that is.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:32PM
ccs1989 at 2:54PM, Oct. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
Well obviously Saddam had chemical weapons, considering we GAVE them to him. The meaning of “weapons of mass destruction” has changed over time to suit what the administration wants.

Instead of invading Iraq with only a tiny coalition, we COULD have gotten the support of the United Nations. It would probably have taken less than month, and a few more inspections, to make sure. Then we would have had the support of the world and this stupid war would have only lasted a few months (which is how long they thought it would last at first.)

Look, you have to start to see the problems with this war when top Army Generals and ex-Administration officials who KNOW how things are going come out against the President and what we're doing in the middle east.

And we might not be taking Iraq's oil for free, but they sure don't have much of a choice in the matter, seeing as the countries' leaders are in our pocket.

Also I really hate how people link 9/11 and the Iraq War. Saddam had NOTHING TO DO with Bin Laden. We went into Iraq under false pretenses. And now we're stuck there, or they want to make it seem like we are. But people are getting rich off this, people with a LOT of influence on the administration.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Zenstrive at 6:34PM, Oct. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 243
joined: 10-10-2006
in short: dubya and hitler uses fear to legitimize their acts.
dubya and hitler both uses rhetorics in grand scale of hypocrisy
dubya and hitler both uses the treasury of their countries like their own money

Men and Ladies, fear doesn't exist. It is simply what we intelligent beings call “a situation of unknown potential threats”. In short: Lacks of informations trigger our survival instincts, making us cowards.

And advice: never choose candidates who said he will liberate people from fear. Choose candidates who said he will unveil the truth of things that make people cower.

“a society who gives up liberty in the sake of security is not worthy of both and will gain neither”

So, has USA achieve both? No I guess…
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:55PM
yeahduff at 10:53PM, Oct. 22, 2006
(offline)
posts: 19
joined: 10-9-2006
Gamers Anonymous
That country we invaded for no reason had a crazed dictator that needed to be removed from power; for years he violated sanctions placed on him after the Gulf War that Clinton failed to enforce, placing that responsibility on the Bush Administration. Iraq had illegal weapons. Some have been found. Iraq's former chief of air force has stated that the nuclear weapons were flown to Syria several months before the war began. Iraq possessed other illegal arms such as two MiG-29 jets that were found buried out in the desert. Completely unnecessary? What a load of crap that is.



There are plenty of crazed dictators out there who “need” to be removed from power. As far as that all goes, Saddam shoulda been pretty low on the list. At some point, Iraq had illegal weapons. That point had long passed by 2003. Yeah, as you say, illegal weapons were found….. in traces, in chemical weapons labs that were abandoned in 1991, in the single round of Serin that some random asshole happened upon from the old days. The intelligence at the time suggested Iraq had weapons, sure, but why forgo UN weapon inspections for a costly war? Anyway, the Bush administration lied even about the faulty intelligence of 2003. One instance had Bush claiming that if we didn't invade and disarm Iraq, they could and would arm and attack within 45 minutes with WMD. Actually, the intelligence suggested that they didn't have such capabilities, and they'd only try to use it if we DID attack. Meanwhile, we got North Korea, a failed state run by a crazed dictator, who we KNOW has nuclear weapons, and we put them on the backburner. The biggest indication that the US knew Saddam had no weapons is that they invaded. Otherwise there's no way we would have risked such destruction. Iraq was a needless detour that has distracted us from the actual fight against terror, has tied our hands from taking military action against places like Iran and North Korea, has tarnished America's reputation around the world (which is important in a war where you need plenty of cooperation from other countries and where growing animosity is the real enemy), and has caused countless bloodshed.

But who cares? The more important question is, “What now?” Is it worth staying and fighting? Is it a lost cause? Is our continued presence helping? Or are we merely antagonizing the situation?

And please, everyone stop comparing Bush to Hitler. It's incredibly juvenile and nonsensical.
Get yourself a lawyer and a gun.


last edited on July 14, 2011 4:53PM
kyupol at 6:18PM, Oct. 24, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006

They are evil.

George Bush invaded Iraq. Why? Cuz Saddam hussein is a brutal dictator and has weapons of mass destruction. Cuz America exists to protect freedom and spread democracy… Cuz iraqis deserve to have better lives and become free. The objective of this war is to remove Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and to free the people of iraq!!!

… as every US marine is told. A good number of them believe it and are in lala land thinking they are doing a noble cause. That they are heroes and defenders of freedom! That they are taking care of a threat before it gets out of hand… pre emptive strike. I'd rather fight in iraq than fight in the streets of American cities. OH NO!!! SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS FLIP-FLOP SANDALS LAUGHING SHOE ARMY IS GONNA INVADE AMERICA!!! OH NO!!! They'd be coming in their state of the art motorized wooden boats with a mounted machine guns.

USA went there and made things worse. Since Arabs have close family ties, every single iraqi that they killed can possibly create 100 “terrorists”.


Bush lied to the American people and to the world. It is already 2006 and where are the WMD?

Why spend billions of dollars in an invasion of a country and protection of freedom? While millions of americans are poor and on the street. Why not help them? Why prioritize on invading another country and making bombs?

If Bush is such a good crusader and protector of freedom, why didnt he intervene in Somalia when islamic warlords took over the country? Why didnt he intervene in Darfur? Why? Cuz there is no oil there. There is nothing to gain in invading a third world hellhole african country.








NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
Zenstrive at 6:25PM, Oct. 26, 2006
(online)
posts: 243
joined: 10-10-2006
So, ducks, Bush is evil right? Hitler is evil too, right?

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:55PM
Phantom Penguin at 6:43PM, Oct. 26, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Theres a slight difference between being evil and being a bad leader.

Hitler, in what i think the word means was damn evil

Bush? hes just a bad president.


Oh and the war in iraq being like vietnam? Hell no. Have you seen the KIA reports from vietnam? The numbers the vietcong mobilized to fight the US?
speaking from first hand experence in Iraq it is far from vietnam.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
subcultured at 11:37PM, Oct. 29, 2006
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
i voted against him, so i have the right to bitch
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:00PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved