346 replies to this topic

[Reflectionist]

i only got pissed because nobody was reading what I put. Do you not hate that when people either A. Don't read what you put down, or B. Ignore it? I sure do. Especially when there are more similarities than differences.

The point is they're both at least starting to become dictators. Go look up some anti flag music.

[Octorok]

The point is they're both at least starting to become dictators.

Are you talking about Bush and Hitler?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

There are similarities between Bush and Hitler, but then again, you could say the same thing for Hitler and Stalin or even Hitler and Saddam.

Also, stating that Bush is like Hitler is not in anyway offensive to the Jews. If anything, it is offensive to Bush. By making the comment, Bush=Hitler, I believe that Reflectionist is personally attacking Bush more than anyone else and is saying that he is just as bad as Hitler.

However, I think the converse argument, which is also hidden in his statement is not true and I think Reflectionist knows that and isn't even making that argument.

[Wanchimaera]

It doesn't matter. If you make the statement A=B, then it's assumed that B=A, A is no more and no less than B and B is no more or no less than A. Bush=Hitler and "Bush is like Hitler" are two very different arguments. If they are both classified the same, got where they are the same, and share common similarities, they're the same? No. One's an apple and the other is an orange.

[Alakhriveion]

Bush ain't Hitler. Bush isn't even in the same League as Hitler. I'm a little bothered by the comparison. I know Bush isn't over yet, but I seriously doubt he's going to reach that point.

[Black Knight]

I'd say Bush=Diet Hitler. Same tactics, with less evil.

[Korhend]

well then couldn't you say that about any politician?

Lets try it

Adolf Hitler and Abraham Lincoln both were democraticaly elected
Adolf Hitler and Abraham Lincoln both used armed force to achieve their goals
Adolf Hitler and Abraham Lincoln both restricted constitutional freedoms

Yep, seems to me "Same tactics, with less evil" equally describes Abraham Lincoln.

[Octorok]

Also, stating that Bush is like Hitler is not in anyway offensive to the Jews.

So how would you be able to know? Are you Jewish?

[Reflectionist]

lol Korhend.

But did Abraham Lincoln invade a country for a personal vendetta, like Bush did to Iraq, and Hitler did to Poland?

[Korhend]

Well yeah, he was annoyed at the confederate states of america, so he invaded them.

[Black Knight]

Didn't we have reports that osama bin laden left iraq

Osama Bin Laden was never in Iraq. September 11th and Iraq weren't related in any way.

[Reflectionist]

no he supposedly left the (sorry for spelling) ToraBora mountains in Afghanistan, and went northwest to Pakistan, right?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

no he supposedly left the (sorry for spelling) ToraBora mountains in Afghanistan, and went northwest to Pakistan, right?

Supposedly being the key word here.

To Furious Octorok: Now if I said all Jews were greedy, hook-nosd, fat bastards (clearly wrong) that would be offensive to Jews. If I said Bush was like Hitler, I'd be offensive, that's true, but to Bush and Hitler.

Was Hitler a Jew? No.

Was Hitler responsible for the mass murder of several million people, including Jews? Well, in a way he was, but it would seem that he didn't actually give any direct orders. He just spoke in visions and his sycophantic followers acted on his visions in as good a way as possible.

The Nazi regime only maintained a thin veneer of order. In reality, the regime was chaotic and poorly run with several departments with vague names all doing the same things.

Still, I could now tell, after reading more of your previous posts, that you are getting offended by the comparison. I will apologise now for offending you, even though I did not make the converse argument that Hitler is equally as good as Bush (ie not as evil as we think he is), it can obviously be inferred from my argument, regardless of the fact that the converse argument was not supposed to be inferred.

Now I know what you mean Reflectionist, except the whole Bush/hitler thing. Yeah, bush is bad, but isn't hitler 100 times worse for killing innocent people? Bush has alos killed innocent people, bu he is doing it for the sake of democracy.

The motives are the same, but both Bush and Hitler believed what they were doing was the right thing, but for different things. Hitler really believed that the Jews were doing something really bad to his country (even though he was completely deluded and obviously a nutcase, who in the end was on so many drugs I'm rather surprised he lasted so long). Bush really believes that what he's doing is right for the sake of the American people, because he believes democracy elsewhere = safer America (oh, and Bush used to be on drugs and then quit).

Democracy in other countries, however, is not always in the best interest of the United States, however. Take Guatemala for example. Democratically elected President and the the US didn't like him. The CIA referred to the Guatemalan President's reforms as "an intensely nationalistic program of progress colored by the touchy, anti-foreign inferiority complex of the 'Banana Republic.'"

But we're getting off the point aren't we? Wasn't this supposed to be about what the US should do in Iraq?

Not to mention stop damaging Iraq's heritage sites (though not all of the damage was caused by the US army and some was done by Iraqi civilians plundering things to sell).

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wolf0126/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...1391042,00.html

[Oberon Storm]

Even if we went in there for weapons of mass destruction, we came out with a better democratic society and a captured saddam hussain. I would consider it as a victory in iraq's part and a win in our column.

Except that terrorism in Iraq and around the world tripled from 2003 to 2004.

[Octorok]

Now if I said all Jews were greedy, hook-nosd, fat bastards (clearly wrong) that would be offensive to Jews. If I said Bush was like Hitler, I'd be offensive, that's true, but to Bush and Hitler.

Once again, how do you know this if you are not Jewish yourself? Just because you don't feel something is disresoectful or offensive doesn't mean that other people all feel the same way about it. For instance, a kid at my school is a cross-dresser, I don't personally care, but other students find that offensive. (I know, bad analogy) Point is opinions differ between people.

Was Hitler responsible for the mass murder of several million people, including Jews? Well, in a way he was, but it would seem that he didn't actually give any direct orders. He just spoke in visions and his sycophantic followers acted on his visions in as good a way as possible.

Hitler was completely responsible for the Holocaust. He gave the orders to build the Camps, and knew completely what was being done in them. Even if he hadn't given the orders, the failure to stop a crime from happening is just as bad as perpetrating that crime.



Now, back on topic. We are definitely not in Iraq for the right reasons, but we've made the best of the situation and are now improving the Iraqi government. I don't think we should be at war, but now that we are, I support it.

[Spawn_of_Souls]

I say drop the nuke

Na I would love to drop a couple of nukes in Iraq or even better yet I would nuke Iraq so that it doesn't show up on the map anymore! if you want to ask what about the other counrties like Iran, Isreal, and so on then I have this to say who cares the middle east is a huge thorn in our side (speaking form a USA stand point) and well if we got ride of them all then we wouldn't have to worry about WW3 breaking out in the M.E.! then after they are gone let nuke FRANCE since they like to complain [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] esp about the US in Iraq!


Thats my stance on Iraq and if you have a problem with it I'm really sorry!

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Na I would love to drop a couple of nukes in Iraq or even better yet I would nuke Iraq so that it doesn't show up on the map anymore!

I'm sorry, are you kidding?

if you want to ask what about the other counrties like Iran, Isreal, and so on then I have this to say who cares the middle east is a huge thorn in our side (speaking form a USA stand point)

Thorn in your side? It's a thorn in everyone's side! The Israel/Palestine thing is a blessing to Islamic terrorists. Its like one of the most biggest issues that they can get to recruit new members!

and well if we got ride of them all then we wouldn't have to worry about WW3 breaking out in the M.E.! then after they are gone let nuke FRANCE since they like to complain [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] esp about the US in Iraq!

I suppose if you are't kidding, then you'd have to contend with the rest of the world, because Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, China, UK, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Canada etc. weren't too keen on the US going into Iraq either.

Not to mention that if you nuke Iraq, some other nations with nuclear weapons might just get a little bit miffed and nuke the US.

However, I'll just assume you're kidding and being sarcastic.

Thats my stance on Iraq and if you have a problem with it I'm really sorry!

Although this last sentence really makes me wonder...

[Korhend]

Actually, Japan did support Iraq. Its the first war they've been in since the great pacific war.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Actually, Japan did support Iraq. Its the first war they've been in since the great pacific war.

REally? I could have sworn the majority of people in Japan were opposed to the war, just like though the majority of people in Spain and the UK were opposed to the war, the Government sent in troops anyway.

[Alakhriveion]

The majority of everybody is opposed to it. The Government indeed sent troops.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Wolf, don't critisize Spawn of souls. He has different beliefs than you and therefore you rely on insults to win?

I've nothing against different beliefs, but the buck must stop somewhere and no, none of my comments were meant to be insulting. There is nothing written between the lines in my last post. I was genuinely, absolutely scared by what he's talking about but assumed for the most part that he was being sarcastic and joking, but just in case he didn't, I posted a few things that he had to bear in mind if he intentionally desired his country's leader to do what he suggested.

I was confused. I didn't know what he really thought, so I hedged my bets and argued against his posts, whilst stating that I actually assumed he was being sarcastic.

If he wasn't and was actually genuinely thinking that the nuclear option was a great idea then in effect he was advocating the mass murder of... what... a few million people in order to kill off a large majority of people that have different beliefs to the US (the French) and a few people that are just plain, cold murderers (the terrorists).

Is that a different belief that should not be criticised? The mass murder of several innocent people just to get rid of a few guilty ones?

Yes, there are out there dangerous beliefs. They should be criticised. In no way should they be insulted, because that is no way to get people to change their mind. In no way did I intentionally insult Spawn of Souls, because I know that's no way to change someone's mind. However, if he was insulted, I will apologise full heartedly.

Son of jor-el, it may have tripled, but take a step back and look what we have done for them? We gave them democracy, which in my mind may be the best thing we could have done.

We also destroyed a secular regime, destroyed archaeological sites and historically and culturally important buildings, but the regime was a tyranny anyway so I guess that doesn't matter.

For some strange reason, in Saddam's regime, though he persecuted those that were against him and the Kurds, he prevented the people from persecuting Christians. That was something I found rather bizarre...

Anyway, I myself would have preferred to see Saddam's regime destroyed from the inside-out. That would have been very satisfying, not least because Saddam would have bene toppled, but because it would have been by his own people.

Have you noticed that in countries liberated by its own people, there really haven't been any terrorist attacks like in Iraq?

Perhaps next time, we shouldn't actually invade but ensure that the people inside the country can liberate themselves. After all, though the French did help you Americans liberate your country and although the British did surrender to the French, was it not a War of Independence where Americans liberated their own country?

In a few years, other countries will realize what democracy REALLY is and therefore might change their government.

Do you know that in the US, pretty much all of the Presidents that have been elected so far are rich? I'm not sure about the Senators and Representatives, but I'm sure quite a lot of them are rich too.

Perhaps we should debate on whether there are any true democracies in this world, or whether we just have democratic republics or democratic plutocracies. That would be interesting.

It is not now that matter, but what matters in 10 years does because I don't want to go back to Iraq for something we've done ten years ago.

Yeah. It's a shame we haven't yet been able to repeat the success of the destruction of Nazi Germany, where all the Allies managed to deNazify the country. However, didn't that take quite a lot of years to put into effect and wasn't it only legitimate because the process was divided amongst many different countries?

[Black Knight]

Wolf, don't critisize Spawn of souls. He has different beliefs than you and therefore you rely on insults to win?

If Spawn of Souls was offended, he would have spoken out for himself. Anyway, his beliefs are no better than those of the Nazis. He just hates/wants to murder the French and Iraqis instead of Jews.

Na I would love to drop a couple of nukes in Iraq or even better yet I would nuke Iraq so that it doesn't show up on the map anymore! if you want to ask what about the other counrties like Iran, Isreal, and so on then I have this to say who cares the middle east is a huge thorn in our side (speaking form a USA stand point) and well if we got ride of them all then we wouldn't have to worry about WW3 breaking out in the M.E.! then after they are gone let nuke FRANCE since they like to complain [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] esp about the US in Iraq!


Thats my stance on Iraq and if you have a problem with it I'm really sorry!

You're one sick and evil person. First, you want to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then you want to nuke an innocent country like France. I hope someone drops a bomb on your house, and then you'll know how it feels. The US is the thorn in the Middle East's side, and they're the ones instigating this whole mess.

[Selena]

Well.... technically if you destroy everyone in the world aside from yourself... then yes! There won't be any more fighting. But then who would we invade?



Anyone who even REMOTELY hints at using nuclear weaponry in war needs to be educated as to what it can lead to. ...You know. The end of humanity and all of that. Nuclear warfare is rather cowardly, anyway. Sad that there's been research made by our government to use new versions of nuclear arms, isn't it? *sighs*

[Black Knight]

If they wouldn't have bombed us, we wouldn't be over there.

Iraq never bombed the US.

[Chikara Nadir]

The terrorists were in Aghanistan, not Iraq.

The American Heritage Dictionary describes terrorism as:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Sorry...but Iraq didn't attack us. We attacked them..generally with the way described above. We attacked the country, and most noteably Baghdad with the intention of scaring out Saddam and Al Qaeda forces and in order to force our own political system upon the country. We found Saddam, but many of the Al Qaeda main men are still unaccounted for (and in the meantime, tens of thousands of American soldiers and helpless Iraqi men, women, and children have lost their lives). The terrorist we said we were going over to the Middle East to find specifically...may be in Pakistan by now (Osama bin Laden, of course).