So if another Hitler came to power, we should sit around and clap our hands?
Well you can make sure he doesn't get elected the next time maybe a simpler ballot sheet?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
Well you can make sure he doesn't get elected the next time maybe a simpler ballot sheet?
[/QUOTE]
lol
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
So if another Hitler came to power, we should sit around and clap our hands?
[/QUOTE]
Thats why we are opposing Bush.
Chosen1,
I dealt with that one above in slightly less plain ingrezi.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
Chosen1,
I dealt with that one above in slightly less plain ingrezi.
[/QUOTE]
I thought I should spell it out clearly, just in case.
clogging up this thread guys
Just clutching at straws when comparing Bush to Hitler. The real Hitler wannabe Saddam is already on his death bed.
Yes 
That is precisely what i am arguing for. i am glad that my ranting is making some sense to someone on this Forum 
Those who compare Bush to Hitler need a history lesson.
Then WHAT are you arguing for? Saddam is a war criminal and must be removed. Period.
Imdad, Sorry i refuse to get bogged down in this argument with yourself just because you are in a mood to argue with someone this morning. You know very well what i am arguing for. Read my last two paragraphs to Deewanagi above. It pretty much spells out my stance. It’s no secret
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Those who compare Bush to Hitler need a history lesson.
[/QUOTE]
Which version?
Okay I admit Hitler was better groomed.
[QUOTE]
What's the difference between Bush and Saddam?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Okay I admit Hitler was better groomed.
[/QUOTE]
Ummeed kartee huu ki tum log mazaak kar rahe ho. but if you're serious, who am i to deny you an education? Let's examine these bush-saddam bush-hitler analogies, startling with Hitler.
The most virulent anti-Bush people believe he is out only to steal Iraqi oil. They do not believe he's going to take over Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia, or the UK. They don't believe he's in cahoots with BJP in india. (In fact, BJP has condemned this war and is working against Washington.) In other words, they don't seriously believe his aim is to wipe out all Muslims. They think he wants oil, and is setting up an empire to get it.
I don't think it is true. But for the sake of argument, say it is true. Now let's compare him to Hitler.
Hitler's aim was the extermination of an entire race of people. To do this, he organized secret police who would round them up and gas them to death. Nobody mistook his aim. It was not some natural resource like oil he was after. Everyone knew his aim was to create an empire that would eventually comprise only (his idea of) the "Aryan" race, with all other races exterminated off the face of the planet.
So even when I use your worst argument against Bush, I find a serious difference between Bush and Hitler. Hitler was out to create an empire that would allow him kill off Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and eventually all "non-Aryans." Even if Bush really were the imperialist you think he is, his goals are hardly so evil. He does not threaten the mass slaughter of all people of one race. If he really wanted this, why would he start with Iraq? Why not attack a country with more Muslims? Your analogy between Hitler and Bush is ridiculous.
It's not so inaccurate, though, when you draw an analogy between Hitler and Saddam. Let's look back at what I said about Hitler: "Hitler's aim was the extermination of an entire race of people. To do this, he organized secret police who would round them up and gas them to death."
Hmm. Anybody reminded of Saddam's Mukhabarat and their treatment of the Kurds?
I rest my case.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Deewaanagi: *
So even when I use your worst argument against Bush, I find a serious difference between Bush and Hitler. Hitler was out to create an empire that would allow him kill off Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and eventually all "non-Aryans." Even if Bush really were the imperialist you think he is, his goals are hardly so evil. He does not threaten the mass slaughter of all people of one race. If he really wanted this, why would he start with Iraq? Why not attack a country with more Muslims? Your analogy between Hitler and Bush is ridiculous.
I rest my case.
[/QUOTE]
Which country does Israel fear the most in Middle East? - Think about it and then you will realise why Iraq was attacked first amongst the Muslim countries and why Syria and Iran are now being issued with threats. Kind of sounds familiar to what you have written about what Hitler wanted to acheive and what Bush wants to acheive. One wanted to wipe out the Jews the other is after the muslims so he can please the "Man of peace".
Israel fears Iran the most.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
Israel fears Iran the most.
[/QUOTE]
Israel fear Pakistan as well, but Iraq was the closest amongst the strong nations and as I have said Iran has been already targetted as the axis of evil. Dont delude yourself.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by chosen1: *
Israel fear Pakistan as well, but Iraq was the closest amongst the strong nations and as I have said Iran has been already targetted as the axis of evil. Dont delude yourself.
[/QUOTE]
Iraq was not that strong militarily after 1991. Israel can fear whoever they want. It doesn't matter as logn as Saddam is gone.
[QUOTE]
Which country does Israel fear the most in Middle East? - Think about it and then you will realise why Iraq was attacked first amongst the Muslim countries and why Syria and Iran are now being issued with threats. Kind of sounds familiar to what you have written about what Hitler wanted to acheive and what Bush wants to acheive. One wanted to wipe out the Jews the other is after the muslims so he can please the "Man of peace".
[/QUOTE]
This is twisted logic. Let me try to straighten it out. You're saying that America attacked Iraq for Israel's sake (which is just stupid, for too many reasons to elucidate here). Then you say that Bush wants to wipe out Muslims. The obvious conclusion of this argument would be that you believe Sharon is killing Palestinians at America's request, to aid Bush's master plan to wipe out Muslims in general.
???? !!!
If Bush wanted to wipe out Muslims, why would he start with Palestine? Do you want to explain how one tiny strip of land and one rather small population has any geopolitical bearing on America? It does, but only in a NEGATIVE way thanks to what ISRAEL is doing there. America does not benefit from the oppression of Palestinians. America benefits from Israel's existence only insofar as it is America's only dependable ally in the Middle East. But America does not benefit at all from the oppression of Palestinians. Rather, the oppression hurts America's case in the Muslim world, makes it more difficult for America to convince Muslim nations of its good intentions. Believe me, America would be far happier if they could find some way to placate Palestinians AND keep Israel a strong ally in the Middle East.
Your logic implies that you are ignoring the geopolitical reality and just focusing on current events in terms of religion, which I think is a very, very dangerous thing to do. Iraq does not equal "the Muslim world" in its totality. Iran and Syria have been threatened by the USA NOT because they were just Muslim, but because Syria has started shuttling jihadis across the border into Iraq and Iran has been sending over agents to disrupt the coming occupation. That they're Muslim countries has nothing to do with it, unless you somehow believe that they've done those things ONLY BECAUSE they are Muslim. In which case, I've gotta ask you: do you think being Muslim necessarily means being anti-American? That's a very serious question, with repercussions for this whole planet. (And I ask it rhetorically, because it's really not yours to decide.)
If we all thought only in terms of religion, the world would have been destroyed by Sept. 11. America would have nuked Afghanistan and every other Muslim nation along with it, because the attackers claimed they were Muslim and it was their religious duty to attack. You probably don't mean to think only in terms of religion, but when you cavalierly suggest that this attack on Iraq is an attack on Muslims in general (based on conspiracy theories you can't back up), you are falling into that trap.
By the way, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this, instead of just snorting and ignoring people who disagree with you!
Hitler is already here.
He's just changed his name using Deed Poll.
George Adolph W Hitler Bush!
As far s ideology is concerned, he still believes in 'survival of the strongest'.
Ring any bells.