Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Historical Facts Hitler & Hussein Share (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Historical Facts Hitler & Hussein Share
Lost Leo
unregistered
posted March 15, 2003 10:38 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting argument he makes, it does hold some historical truths & lessons...

The New Nazis
-Bill O'Reilly

It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of The Third Reich 70 years ago. I consider Saddam Hussein to be "Hitler lite" because he has the same virulent anti-Semitism, the same callous disregard for human life, and the identical lust for power that Adolf possessed. The only difference between the two villains is the size of the moustache.

Back in the 1930s, millions of people the world over simply did not want to think about the evil Hitler was brewing up. France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they are today on the Iraq question. Stalin ultimately signed a treaty with Hitler making it possible for him to use most of his forces to crush Europe, and France simply allowed Hitler to violate the Treaty of Versailles, even more than the 17 times Saddam has violated current U.N. mandates. Britain went along with France in the '30s, but now it seems the United Kingdom has learned from its historical mistakes.

And then there's the Pope. John Paul II recently came out and said that any war against Iraq would be "immoral." Back in the '30s, Pope Pius XII actually supported Hitler politically, at least in the beginning of his rise when Pius was stationed in Germany. The Third Reich was considered a bulwark against Communism, which the Church greatly feared. Subsequently, Pius kept quiet about the atrocities of Hitler's regime because he knew that the Vatican itself could easily be vanquished by the Huns.

Today, John Paul deplores the violence that comes with any war but is at a loss to explain how terrorism and the states that enable it should be dealt with. Remember, the Pope did not approve of the military action against the Taliban.

Peace, of course, should be the goal of all civilized human beings. Millions of Americans are against a war in Iraq today, and millions of us were vehemently opposed to confronting Hitler as well. Back then the anti-war movement was led by Charles Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, who largely dismissed accusations of Nazi brutality and weapons production as propaganda. In 1937, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler was even on the cover of Time magazine. I have the issue. The article criticized Himmler and hinted at barbaric behavior, but there was no "smoking gun."

The failure to confront the obvious evil of the Nazis early, of course, led to the deaths of more than 55,000,000 human beings in Europe. Millions of Jews were stunned when they were led by German guards to the gas chambers. How could human beings do this? Even after evidence of mass executions surfaced, many the world over refused to believe it. Liberating American soldiers were horrified at what they found in the concentration camps. Most had no idea of what they were really fighting against.

Does anyone today believe that Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter Jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so? So what is the difference between a dictator like Saddam and Adolph Hitler?

It continues to astound me that 37 percent of Americans, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, do not support the removal of Saddam Hussein unless other countries, which do not share our danger, sign on. I mean, why allow a dictator who has weapons that would make Hitler salivate remain a threat to the world? Does it make sense that Cameroon has to sign on before we neutralize this threat?

If France, German, China and Russia would support the United States against Saddam, he'd already be out of power. If France, Russia and Britain had marched into Germany in 1933, there would have been no World War or Holocaust.

Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of killing people; that's a fact. And the only way that evil will be stopped is for just and courageous people to confront it.

IP: Logged

Oxychick
unregistered
posted March 15, 2003 10:41 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wow, LL! Great find! I'm gonna crack open another beer...er..soda...and take a read...

Very interesting!

IP: Logged

Donna
unregistered
posted March 16, 2003 12:09 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Lost Leo,

I watch O'Reilly almost every day, he is sharp, astute and interesting. Love that FoxNews Channel!!

Donna

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted March 16, 2003 11:13 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
AND both are Taurus Suns...

Does anyone know if there are any other astrological commonalities?

IP: Logged

Alena
unregistered
posted March 16, 2003 11:34 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, both Taurus Suns (hangs head in shame)

IP: Logged

Quinnie
Moderator

Posts: 780
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 16, 2003 07:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Quinnie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ho Lost Leo I'm gonna apologise before-hand for what I'm gonna say here because you are not gonna like it...
I'm sorry but I'm compelled to share the other side of the coin...

I'm not sure if you're aware how some have been comparing President Bush to Hitler and this is not coming merely from Iraq.
This is coming from articles that talk about concentration camps in the USA.
This is serious stuff, I've read a few articles about this and from what I've read it's more than a conspiracy... some say they are for terrorists, but what defines a terrorist?
President Bush has said publicly to the world... 'You are either with us or against us' Could that therefore mean that anyone against war could be called a terrorist?
This is not as extreme as it seems. In northern Ireland for years innocent people were treated like terrorists for years because it was believed by some that everyone was part of the terrorism of the republican movement. This wasn't so and innocent people were murdered or jailed for crimes they did not commit.
If you want to read an article about this try doing a search for the words below...
Concentration Camps in the US Today and Historical Precedents

IP: Logged

theFajita3
unregistered
posted March 16, 2003 08:01 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting article, and interesting that they are both Taurus suns.


I think Saddam and his ways are alot different from Bush, I can see how Saddam and Hitler can be compared but Bush doesn't even fit into that realm of evil. Maybe I am uneducated on Bush (very possible) and have alot to learn.

------------------
food is the only art that nourishes!

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 11:36 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No Fajita, you are RIGHT ON!

I've haven't heard him compared to Bush publicly by any accredited source, no one would dare!

If some organization would, their prestige would plummet thru the floor as the comparison is obviously infactual & without any merit.

Most groups, or people, using that comparison are simply looking to catch the media's attention to serve their own purposes not really trying to make a case for or against in the Iraqi situation.

There are not concentration camps in the United States right now Quinnie, don't believe everything hyper-liberals trying to make a name for themselves write

IP: Logged

QueenofSheeba
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 02:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think it's fashionable to compare anyone you don't like to Hitler, as he is one of the eviller men in recent history: Anti- Bushies say Bush is like Hitler because they don't like him, and whack- Iraqers say Saddam is like Hitler because they want to invade Iraq. So maybe he is like Hitler... but I'm not worried, because our glorious military has been bombing his country for the past decade or so. Viva la empire Americana! So I obviously don't speak French...

Caution, people: because this situation bears resemblances to a previous situation does not mean the situations are really identical. The current era looks a little like the early twentieth century, and you all know what happened back then. It also looks a little like the time before the French Revolution... or before the rise of Alexander the Great! Who knows what reincarnated historical figure will resurface next!!!


------------------
Hello everybody! I used to be QueenofSheeba and then I was Apollo and now I am QueenofSheeba again (and I'm a guy in case you didn't know)!

IP: Logged

1scorp
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 03:20 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Leo: History does have a way of repeating itself.

I know a few in the military and if it weren't for them than we'd all be in one heck of a shape!! I'm not one who doesn't look at war and think of the horrible out-comes. (Even the enlisted men and women think of it) I can understand people's points on both sides. However, until we are rid of these type of people, than realistically peace seems so far away.

I "was" going to mention something about the Taurus ties... but hey, I'm a scorp and that's coming from a Manson history and well...

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 04:02 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ahhh, so QoS holds to the "history as a wheel" school of thought...

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2003 04:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bush and Hitler: one in the same? I think not. I wouldn't even think of comparing Clinton to Hitler and both were ego maniacs.

Last time I check Bush didn't unleash chemical weapons on the grand citizens of the US, not even the wacknuts out in Northern Cali. It is just absolutely sick and disgusting to compare Hitler, who killed gassed millions of jew, retarded and handicapped people, to Bush did what? Declare war on terrorists? Wants to get a cruel psychotic dictator out of Iraq?


Anyway, back to reality. HEYYYYYY, does ANYONE know O'Reilly's astro data?

I would die to know his Sun sign. He has the face of a Gemini, but I think he is more of an Aquarius or possibly a Sag.

Anyone care to guess? Or does any know his info?

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)

"Once we moved like the Wind"

"Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar." This call and spur to the faithful servants of Truth and Justice was quoted by Churchill in his first broadcast as Prime Minister to the British people on the BBC - May 19, 1940, London.

IP: Logged

Alena
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 04:57 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would love to know what sign he is too. I don't think he'd be an air sign, he gets a little emotional at times. I would guess his Sun or even Moon would be fire or water. Sag sounds good or even Scorpio. Hmmm where's his bio? I'd also like to know what Ari Fleischer's birth date is. I'd bet he's an air sign.

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 05:37 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Betcha a dollar O'R has a healthy dose of Cancer (the sign, not the ailment) somewhere.

IP: Logged

Quinnie
Moderator

Posts: 780
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2003 05:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Quinnie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I was a little extreme with the Hitler-Bush thing but I'm just doing the Libra thing.
So there are definitley No concentration camps in the US?
Oh well thats a relief, my heart was pounding when I first read about it.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2003 06:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
LOL... Quinnie, I totally understand!


Prox, you think he might be a cancer? I think he might be too quippy for a cancer dude. Now Bush, he reminds me of a Cancer, being full of face. His moon is in Libra ( I thought for sure I read it was in Scorpio)
Laura Bush is a Scorpio with her moon in Pisces. Whole lotta water going on there. LOL

I looked at O'Reilly's bio and couldn't find a birthdate. Umm, well, I just e-mailed the O'Reilly factor on Fox asking for it. LOL

Maybe they will send it. Sometimes I am such a weirdo!

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 07:05 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh, yeah - he reminds me so much of this conservative double cancer that I know (the quippy-ness and all) - but to be fair, I think that that guy has a few Gem influences running around, too.

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted March 17, 2003 08:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
History does indeed have a way of repeating itself...
I've been avoiding this thread because I was afraid I'd say some pretty vile things about how blatant the propaganda machine has become but then I came across this well researched article and felt it needed to be posted here.
This too could possibly be construed as propaganda as much as the original Fox article, I suppose. But one can't deny the eerie similarities between the rise of Hitler and now the course the bush administration is taking, especially after reading this whole article. It's a long one, but that's only because the similarities between bush and Hitler go far deeper than those between Saddam and Adolf.


Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Now consider that little tidbit I've shared before that keeps getting brushed aside..
Ironically, Prescott Bush (GW's granddad) made his fortune by working with the Nazis, selling them stuff until Congress found out and put a stop to it..y'know, being buisness partners with the enemy in times of war is bad news, afterall!

IP: Logged

Alena
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 08:53 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry Harpyr, I still don't see the similarity between Bush and Hitler. Can you explain it to me in your own words?

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 11:42 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That was pathetic! It doesn't even deserve a response, not even a "Good Try!"

THERE ARE ZERO HISTORICAL FACTS OR COMPARISONS!!!

ONLY WORDS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT PUT ALONGSIDE WORDS HITLER USED

errr, this line is disconnected, plz try again

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted March 17, 2003 11:46 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Ironically, Prescott Bush (GW's granddad) made his fortune by working with the Nazis"

Does anyone want to tell me what this has to do with terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, disarmanent, the United Nations, and the possibility of forceful action to disarm Saddam Hussein?

IP: Logged

theFajita3
unregistered
posted March 18, 2003 12:09 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hitler was a truly evil man and orchestrated such disgusting things, Saddam too.

I can't help but feel to compare Bush to them is almost an insult to all the people that died who was a Kurd or a Jew or anyone really, under Hitler or Saddam's rule.

------------------
food is the only art that nourishes!

IP: Logged

1scorp
unregistered
posted March 18, 2003 10:18 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think Bush is a gemini

Pidaua: That is so funny that you e-mailed to get O'Reilly's b-day! Let us know if you find out.

Also Harpyr, I may not agree with your view on things... however, I can respect the way in which you defend them.

The Saddam situation... he has been given 48 hours to leave Iraq to avoid bombing... he refused !! What does that show for a man that is in control of the people of Iraq?!

Yet these people are suppose to continue being ruled by someone who pays no more regards to his own people's lives than this??

Also, if he doesn't respect their lives than he sure in the hell isn't going to respect any of ours.

IP: Logged

QueenofSheeba
unregistered
posted March 18, 2003 09:15 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Blaaaaaaah...

------------------
Hello everybody! I used to be QueenofSheeba and then I was Apollo and now I am QueenofSheeba again (and I'm a guy in case you didn't know)!

IP: Logged

Alena
unregistered
posted March 18, 2003 10:06 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
QOS, I think you missed his point. He **was** acknowledging her point of view.......he disagreed with it. What does comparing Bush to Hitler have to do with Saddam manipulating the UN and hiding weapons or for that matter brutalizing his people? It's like comparing apples to oranges. I'm pretty sure that is what he meant. (Leo, hope you don't mind that I spoke for ya but I figure your views are in sync with mine)

I perceive that article as the usual propaganda the liberals put out to bash Bush/republicans. If anyone truly believes the comparison then maybe you'd want to run on up to Canada where you'd would be safe.

IP: Logged


This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a