I love Hugo Chavez
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
cortez, I don't think you can really compair modern leaders realistically to those of even 60 years ago. They lived totally in a different age.
I'll play the devils advigate here for a moment and actually supose I ment that Bush was hitler, this is in the contest that Bush use Propaganda much as Hitler would have in this day and age, weaving fear, hatred and ingorance together to unite a nation against a precevied foe. In Hitlers day and age, it was the Communists and Jews. In a sence there was some dangour but not much and was very controlable in the sence of communism, or at least Stalinistic Russia was contained and was already in a secrect treaty with Facsist Germany. This minor threat weaved together in the media of the day in movies, speeches and even posters (as they actually did work back then). Today a compairison can be drawn with Bush weaving fear and ignorance together with the minor threat of terrorist acts against the USA into the ability to wage an agressive war against the Iraqi nation and occupation there of of the land, such as Hitler did with much of Europe, or you could arugue could be contrasted with Poland and the "polish terrosist" strike against the border (was made up by the SS and actually done by SS agents in Polish uniforms).
The eventuality of this act from both the USA and Germany went into an unexpected larger war and a war which ended up a lot differently then planed. As with Germany being stoped at Stalingrade and the entrance of the USA in the war plus the UK just not surrendering or entering an armitice after the bombing of the UK. So the war on terror has not gone on as hoped. As they invaded both Afcanistan, hopes were high that the USA would be seen as liberaters, two quick wars... indeed in some reguards the wars were both won but the peace was lost and at what cost. Countless billions to the Americans, some human life to the americans but countless death and destruction to both Afcanistan and Iraq, plus a horrible perception of the USA deepening in the middle east. The USA promised us that a liberated Iraq would be a becon of hope in the middle east that democracy would spread from the ashes of this war. So far only terrorism and hatred have spread, gone much beyound that of the 90's to the point of perhaps yet another war, this time a war were the war is not guaranteed to be won, and that is with Iran.
Nobody is saying that the USA has death camps open, well, because in this modern age it is not as easy to hide as in past ages, as we can point out everyone knows about such camps as Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and we all know that these arn't the only ones, but they are tickle camps compaired to what Hitler had running, or even Stalin.
So no, Bush is not Hitler, Bush is just Bush. He will go down in history as such, as a two term war hawk president who started two wars winning the major battles but truly not winning the peace in his time.
I think the USA has gotten itself into some trouble and I'm not sure the best way in dealing with it is. Some call me a socialist, but I disagree with almost all on the left and even centre left who cry out we should just cut and run and get the hell out. This would be the wrong thing todo. We just can't go into another nation, destory everything it has including its leadership run away and leave them in civil war. It would just cause more death and destruction. But yeah you just can't stay in hopes that people in that nation change there mind about you, but there must be some middle ground and I do believe that is with a UN mission with the Americans supply the magority of the troops in blue helmets and under UN supervision and command (if that leaves an american general in charge then it does). Only threw the legitimacy of the UN can this problem have any hope in being solved.
Well thats my two cents.
PS:
Plus you guys gotta start regonizing sarcaism.
I'll play the devils advigate here for a moment and actually supose I ment that Bush was hitler, this is in the contest that Bush use Propaganda much as Hitler would have in this day and age, weaving fear, hatred and ingorance together to unite a nation against a precevied foe. In Hitlers day and age, it was the Communists and Jews. In a sence there was some dangour but not much and was very controlable in the sence of communism, or at least Stalinistic Russia was contained and was already in a secrect treaty with Facsist Germany. This minor threat weaved together in the media of the day in movies, speeches and even posters (as they actually did work back then). Today a compairison can be drawn with Bush weaving fear and ignorance together with the minor threat of terrorist acts against the USA into the ability to wage an agressive war against the Iraqi nation and occupation there of of the land, such as Hitler did with much of Europe, or you could arugue could be contrasted with Poland and the "polish terrosist" strike against the border (was made up by the SS and actually done by SS agents in Polish uniforms).
The eventuality of this act from both the USA and Germany went into an unexpected larger war and a war which ended up a lot differently then planed. As with Germany being stoped at Stalingrade and the entrance of the USA in the war plus the UK just not surrendering or entering an armitice after the bombing of the UK. So the war on terror has not gone on as hoped. As they invaded both Afcanistan, hopes were high that the USA would be seen as liberaters, two quick wars... indeed in some reguards the wars were both won but the peace was lost and at what cost. Countless billions to the Americans, some human life to the americans but countless death and destruction to both Afcanistan and Iraq, plus a horrible perception of the USA deepening in the middle east. The USA promised us that a liberated Iraq would be a becon of hope in the middle east that democracy would spread from the ashes of this war. So far only terrorism and hatred have spread, gone much beyound that of the 90's to the point of perhaps yet another war, this time a war were the war is not guaranteed to be won, and that is with Iran.
Nobody is saying that the USA has death camps open, well, because in this modern age it is not as easy to hide as in past ages, as we can point out everyone knows about such camps as Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and we all know that these arn't the only ones, but they are tickle camps compaired to what Hitler had running, or even Stalin.
So no, Bush is not Hitler, Bush is just Bush. He will go down in history as such, as a two term war hawk president who started two wars winning the major battles but truly not winning the peace in his time.
I think the USA has gotten itself into some trouble and I'm not sure the best way in dealing with it is. Some call me a socialist, but I disagree with almost all on the left and even centre left who cry out we should just cut and run and get the hell out. This would be the wrong thing todo. We just can't go into another nation, destory everything it has including its leadership run away and leave them in civil war. It would just cause more death and destruction. But yeah you just can't stay in hopes that people in that nation change there mind about you, but there must be some middle ground and I do believe that is with a UN mission with the Americans supply the magority of the troops in blue helmets and under UN supervision and command (if that leaves an american general in charge then it does). Only threw the legitimacy of the UN can this problem have any hope in being solved.
Well thats my two cents.
PS:
Plus you guys gotta start regonizing sarcaism.
I like to compare leaders to Stalin, because all leaders are a bit like Stalin
Let's see now.
Stalin 100%
Lenin 95%
Jack Layton 94%
Ed Broadbent 93%
Tommy Douglass 96%
Stephen Lewis 92.783625%
Naomi Klein 96%
Project Ploughshares 99%
Stephen Harper -20%.
Well done Stephen BTW. <clap> <clap>
Let's see now.
Stalin 100%
Lenin 95%
Jack Layton 94%
Ed Broadbent 93%
Tommy Douglass 96%
Stephen Lewis 92.783625%
Naomi Klein 96%
Project Ploughshares 99%
Stephen Harper -20%.
Well done Stephen BTW. <clap> <clap>
Toro said:
Thats a joke man. I could see Lenin being pretty close to him. Maybe a 45% but anybody else mentioned there is way off. Poor Layton, jack and Tommy.....
Toro said:
thats very funny
i actually agree with you stalin is 100%
im not sure about the others though
if jack layton is like 93% then like sister teresa must be 95% etc
i KNEW youd draw up such a list
mine are actually based on real experiment readings
yours however are clearly falsified--- no hitlermeter in existence can measure hitlerness to 7 decimal point accuracy..
Finder said:
you clearly know your stuff
the comparison was as i said above somewhere that because the white house initially called chavez hitler- like--- that it was more than fair to refer to them in the same way--
my point was to mock this whole---comparing X to hitler tactic that everyone likes to employ
Jersay said:I want to know too who this Murray guy is. Don't make me use Wikipedia.
Aww, go ahead. You know you want to.
Seems like an okay guy to me. Reading about his article of left-wing Canada and he is dead on.
Harper lied and weasled his way to a very small victory by trying to act leftist or centralist.
So good for comrade Murray.
Harper lied and weasled his way to a very small victory by trying to act leftist or centralist.
So good for comrade Murray.
Well my comments are based on that one article alone so tomorrow when i have more time i will read the other ones. But he seems to be an insightful person.