Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
The point is He had no choice to preserve Germany. The League of Nations wanted them to all die and He could not let that happen. The Germans were starving to death man THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY were starving to death. There was no choice. The point was any Nation will do ANYTHING to perpetuate their existence. Just like th U.S. , Hence my examples. You don't know what you are talking about. Your spewing the same tiered Rhetoric that Western High schools teach.
As I already said, the League of Nations certainly gave Hitler a reason but Hitler did plenty to annoy the League of Nations and he could have gotten away with it. Instead he plunged his country into a war that he did want. Something you have claimed he didn't. He wanted a war, he wanted a war with England and France and he got it, and as a result he died and the Germany he build was destroyed again. You are stupid if you really believe that he couldn't have done anything else and that he really did not want a war. He desperately wanted a war.
Well not numerically in his killings, but he was up there for his attacks on the Kurdish civilian population, and his use of gas to massacre civiilains. He hated them many others, he solidified a strong authoritarian power, and he started an invasion to capture kuwait (which was all they could hope to accomplish).He was a little hitler.
He was nowhere near as bad as Hitler, funny though that you don't mention him using those same weapons supplied by the US against Iran, funny that you don't even mention that war as a bad thing though. The reason Saddam was attacked during Gulf War I, or II depending on how you look at it, was Kuwait. Not because he attacked his own people not because he used chemical weapons that was all okay with the US.
Now again, removing Saddam was not done because he was a bad man, it was done for entirely different reasons, if the US wanted to remove bad people they would have attacked other far worse dictators out there. They should have gone into Darfur instead of Iraq that's a place they could have a made a difference. The attack on Iraq had nothing absolutely nothing to do with the faith of the Iraqi people.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
When people say that about Saddam, are they comparing the two's bodycount or their mentality/goals?
All of them...
Bodycount does mean a lot though, but the mentality of Hitler and his goals were far different then that of Saddam as well. People compare way to many dictators to Hitler anyway.
People just compare anything bad to Hitler...
Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
The point is He had no choice to preserve Germany. The League of Nations wanted them to all die and He could not let that happen. The Germans were starving to death man THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY were starving to death. There was no choice. The point was any Nation will do ANYTHING to perpetuate their existence. Just like th U.S. , Hence my examples. You don't know what you are talking about. Your spewing the same tiered Rhetoric that Western High schools teach.
Woah. Its one thing to say that her was perfectly right to strengthen Germany...its quite another to say he had to take over the Western World to keep Germany alive.
Observation:
The military complex is nothing but a brutal sermon of men and women who go out to die for shadey and complex governmental causes that none of us can completely answer too..
Conlusion:
The taxpayer should not have to be responsible for the bloodfeuds between nations and the military should be privatized.
Originally posted by HK47
Observation:The military complex is nothing but a brutal sermon of men and women who go out to die for shadey and complex governmental causes that none of us can completely answer too..
Conlusion:
The taxpayer should not have to be responsible for the bloodfeuds between nations and the military should be privatized.
A privatized military? Are you insane? The military is the only thing that forces a democracy to stay a democracy. It's the reason why your country isn't attacked and conquered. Privatize it and you would give a few select people the power of the armed forces and the protection of an entire country. It would end the democracy in minutes.
Observation:
We don't have a democracy. We have selective-fascism. Untill every single man and woman and child can vote on an issue instead of the elite few such as the supreme court and congress, a democracy will never exsist.
Statement:
The threat of a foreighn enemy in this day of age is ridicoules. To attack a country that you trade with would be economical suicide, and not even the likes of Jim Kong Il are that stupid!
Conclusion:
The idea of needing a military is founded on false pretenses, poor logic, and fearmongering. We don't need a military anymore then we need a president. Who serves as nothing more then a glorified ambassador.
Originally posted by HK47
Observation:We don't have a democracy. We have selective-fascism. Untill every single man and woman and child can vote on an issue instead of the elite few such as the supreme court and congress, a democracy will never exsist.
Statement:
The threat of a foreighn enemy in this day of age is ridicoules. To attack a country that you trade with would be economical suicide, and not even the likes of Jim Kong Il are [b]that
stupid!Conclusion:
The idea of needing a military is founded on false pretenses, poor logic, and fearmongering. We don't need a military anymore then we need a president. Who serves as nothing more then a glorified ambassador. [/B]
Obviously you don't understand the concept of a democracy. Or international economics.
A democracy is a place where the people elect who rule, not where the people rule. That would be idiotic because the people can't rule themselves. They don't know enough about issues to decide on them. To let the people make decisions based on law books is idiotic at best, you need to have educated people who know how that shit works examine the evidence and then make a ruling based on that. You need officials to look at all issues and then go from there, if the people would be involved in everything you would have a bankrupt country where nothing is done.
Conclusion: Your logic sucks, if you honestly think you have a chance in hell of surviving without the so called political elite and the military.
And yes there is a very real threat of foreign invasion for the US if it would remove it's army. The US it's biggest market is still it's internal market. That's a market with 300 million + people suddenly gained, people you can suddenly tax. The army is very much needed.
Originally posted by Fishy
He was nowhere near as bad as Hitler, funny though that you don't mention him using those same weapons supplied by the US against Iran, funny that you don't even mention that war as a bad thing though. The reason Saddam was attacked during Gulf War I, or II depending on how you look at it, was Kuwait. Not because he attacked his own people not because he used chemical weapons that was all okay with the US.Now again, removing Saddam was not done because he was a bad man, it was done for entirely different reasons, if the US wanted to remove bad people they would have attacked other far worse dictators out there. They should have gone into Darfur instead of Iraq that's a place they could have a made a difference. The attack on Iraq had nothing absolutely nothing to do with the faith of the Iraqi people.
Ideologically, just as bad. It wouldnt really matter if it was one person or a million, just the numerical difference that would gain attention.
It was partly a reason, but since it cannot justify a war, the other reasons were used instead....only they were almost entirely incorrect. They did a bad job justifying the war, but it was a neccessary war anyways. They should have gone into Darfur, but their inconsistencies are admittedly part of the government's failure.
And the U.S. has never supplied weapons to Iraq or against Iran. Iraq was a Soviet ally.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Ideologically, just as bad. It wouldnt really matter if it was one person or a million, just the numerical difference that would gain attention.It was partly a reason, but since it cannot justify a war, the other reasons were used instead....only they were almost entirely incorrect. They did a bad job justifying the war, but it was a neccessary war anyways. They should have gone into Darfur, but their inconsistencies are admittedly part of the government's failure.
And the U.S. has never supplied weapons to Iraq or against Iran. Iraq was a Soviet ally.
Saddam and Hitler had completely different goals in life, and completely different ways of achieving them. The only thing they have in common is that they were both dictators, but you can't go out and compare every dictator out there to Hitler. Most of them aren't even close to as bad. That includes Saddam.
You are however right on one thing in this post there, that reason couldn't justify a war. And it wasn't even a real reason for Bush to go into Iraq in the first place, an added bonus to get more support, but Iraq was not invaded because Saddam was an evil bastard.
Funny thing though, seeing as it's the only remaining excuse for the war, it's also the one thing the US can't recreate in order to create a peace. When somebody like Saddam could fix this entire situation for them.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Ideologically, just as bad.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And the U.S. has never supplied weapons to Iraq or against Iran. Iraq was a Soviet ally.
Originally posted by Alliance
[B]Apparently you've never read their ideologies. Maybe thats why you don't understand the situation.
Have you? Please enlighten.
Holy shit you are ignorant. See: IRAN IRAQ WAR. We put Saddam in power and then armed him.
I stand corrected. I read a lot of articles and had no mention of the U.S and I didnt read about the Iraq-Iran war. Relations with Iraq were somewhat tense though before that war, and became even more tense afterwards with Kuwait, where he betrayed any remained U.S support.
Iraq was a soviet-american struggle for power, and U.S won eventually. The soviet union supplied more military stuff to Iraq than we did. But before the Iran-Iraq war sides switched and it became U.S and Iraq vs. Russia and Iran.
The U.S itself did not wholly supply weapons material, it was private companies for the most part, many who were caught and forced to pay fines for supplying without government consent. Those were a minor amount of the supplied weapons that went to Iraq, the most chemicals came from France and Germany.
The only military provisions we sold to them were some helicopters, although our help in the war really made up for everything else.
Well this is off-topic, but I think it is funny.
"Details of his interrogations remain unclear.
U.S. guards watching Saddam revealed that during incarceration, Saddam developed a taste for Raisin Bran Crunch cereal, but detested Fruit Loops, and would snack during the day on Doritos corn chips (which he preferred to Cheetos).[24] He would also dole out advice on women to willing listeners, advising one soldier to find a woman not too smart, not too dumb, not too old, not too young.[25]"
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/20/saddam.behind.bars/index.html
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Have you? Please enlighten.
Hitler wanted to create an Aryan utopia a super society where he and his descendants would govern the world for a thousand years. Where there would be no Jews, none-whites, none-Christians, cripples, homosexuals and everything else that did not fit his perfect world image and he did everything he could to make that happen. Saddam just wanted power.
Statement:
Adolph Hitler also assimilated women to be incubators who were to submit thier bodies and or marry and pretty much become property to nazi soldiers.
Observation:
Adolph Hitler knew how to get people to join the army instead of with retarded commercials like we got. Even I wouldn't passup the chance to have any woman I wanted because she wanted a nazi-baby!