George Bush compared to Hitler

[Prokek]

1:36 I found this interesting. Coincidence?

[youtube]12pwkeVk7B8&e[/youtube]

(I couldn't post a link :-/)

 

[Angel Heart]

Bit old...

The video was posted on YouTube in Sept 2007. Iraq isn't the problem it was 11 months ago.

 

[jreeves]

Bit old...

The video was posted on YouTube in Sept 2007. Iraq isn't the problem it was 11 months ago.

Yes there has been an 80% reduction in violence since then. Seems as though the basis for the film clip is now gone.

 

[editec]

I hate these sorts of goofy comparisons.

Bush is not Hitler, Hitler is not Bush.

Enough already!

 

[Epsilon Delta]

You guys are missing the point (I guess the guy from the video guy doesn't really make it very clear). The point is that Bush began a "preventive" war of aggression on Iraq, which is not really any different than Hitler's "preventive" war of aggression against Poland, both on false pretexts. The point isn't that Bush is trying to commit genocide or that he's a lunatic like Hitler, just that he committed the same "supreme international crime", according to the Nuremberg terminology. It could've been Mahatma Gandhi doing the same thing, and it would've still been a crime, regardless of how 'nice' Bush is or how evil Hitler was.

That's the connection.

 

[editec]

You guys are missing the point (I guess the guy from the video guy doesn't really make it very clear). The point is that Bush began a "preventive" war of aggression on Iraq, which is not really any different than Hitler's "preventive" war of aggression against Poland, both on false pretexts. The point isn't that Bush is trying to commit genocide or that he's a lunatic like Hitler, just that he committed the same "supreme international crime", according to the Nuremberg terminology. It could've been Mahatma Gandhi doing the same thing, and it would've still been a crime, regardless of how 'nice' Bush is or how evil Hitler was.

That's the connection.

It's a connection that is so biased and so uninformed that it embarrasses those of us who object to the Bush regime and actually understand WHY we do.

While I was completely against the invasion of Iraq, comparing Iraq to Poland in 1939 is absurd.

And comparing Bush to Hitler? Also very counter productive.

It invites us to turn off our intellects and let flow the emotionalism which Hitler brings out in most of us.

It is unfair, incorrect and misleading to make such a comparison.

Obviously I am no lover of Bush or his policies, but honestly...

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I'm not sayin Bush is anything like Hitler.

I'm saying he did the same thing.

But you can inform, what's the world of difference between Poland and Iraq, besides the rhetoric?

 

[Shattered]

Hitler? Honestly? Really?

 

[Charles_Main]

Hitler made Bush look like the kindest, Most gentle man alive.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is retarded. About as retarded as Bush is to be exact.

 

[Nemo Securus]

Might I add that G.W. isn't anywhere near as smart as Hitler either. Not that Hitler was good but he was certainly no dumby. I don't think the pres has the foresight to come up with such a master plan.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Bah, Hitler was a total whacko, and he made stunningly idiotic blunders. Helping Mussolini ini the Balkan Peninsula basically cost him the war, and the Holocaust itself couldn't have been more retarded even for him. Those trainloads should've been carrying ammunition, troops, supplies to the front, not ferrying thousands of innocents around the country to their deaths. What a total waste.

Either way, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[jillian]

Comparing Baby Bush to Hitler is silly, IMO.

As for what cost Hitler the war: same thing that cost Napoleon... the Russian winter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Comparing Baby Bush to Hitler is silly, IMO.

As for what cost Hitler the war: same thing that cost Napoleon... the Russian winter.

Well not exactly. It sure did not help. But if he had not wasted 6 weeks in Yugoslavia and Greece and had not ordered his tanks from the center to the south and back again, he probably would have taken Moscow before winter. And the Germans did hold on to most of what they took before winter hit.

With an Extra 6 weeks and those divisions left in the Balkans it is entirely possible that Moscow and Leningrad would have fallen. Moscow was a critical city. Stalin refused to leave even at the worst of it, it was a major propganda tool. Losing the city would have caused all kind of doubt in the Soviets. Losing Leningrad would have freed a lot of German troops for duty elsewhere as the Finns could have garrisoned the area. Also Germany did not actually lose in the Soviet Union till the next Year at Stalingrad.

 

[AllieBaba]

You guys are missing the point (I guess the guy from the video guy doesn't really make it very clear). The point is that Bush began a "preventive" war of aggression on Iraq, which is not really any different than Hitler's "preventive" war of aggression against Poland, both on false pretexts. The point isn't that Bush is trying to commit genocide or that he's a lunatic like Hitler, just that he committed the same "supreme international crime", according to the Nuremberg terminology. It could've been Mahatma Gandhi doing the same thing, and it would've still been a crime, regardless of how 'nice' Bush is or how evil Hitler was.

That's the connection.

THe difference being, of course, that Poland had not violated agreements with Germany, nor threatened Germany in any way, nor killed off their own people recently...

 

[sealybobo]

I hate these sorts of goofy comparisons.

Bush is not Hitler, Hitler is not Bush.

Enough already!

Read up on the years before WW2 in Germany. You will find that the Bush regime stole from the fascist playbook. People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[jillian]

Read up on the years before WW2 in Germany. You will find that the Bush regime stole from the fascist playbook. People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

There may be political concepts that were adopted. But comparing Bush to Hitler is fallacious. Comparisons like that speak more to the lack of nuance of the person commenting than the circumstances being compared.

there was one Hitler.

 

[sealybobo]

There may be political concepts that were adopted. But comparing Bush to Hitler is fallacious. Comparisons like that speak more to the lack of nuance of the person commenting than the circumstances being compared.

there was one Hitler.

It's like comparing 2 seriel killers I guess. Yes, each did their own thing.


But they are both seriel killers. LOL.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not only is that not true, it's not funny, either.

Bush has never proposed genocide, dipshit. Hitler did.

 

[sealybobo]

Not only is that not true, it's not funny, either.

Bush has never proposed genocide, dipshit. Hitler did.

Bush is responsible for the murder of 1 million people, dipshit.

The differences are minor and irrelivant.

And how many of you have said to just make a parking lot out of the middle east?

So you are the Hitler.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's a waste of time trying to argue with a Bush hater. Your consuming hatred jaundices your sight and makes you unreasonable.

Take a pill and a bath and come back when you grow up.