Latest polls: Hitler was right

[poptart]

I'm neither on the religous right nor anxious for Armageddon.

Don't take the third strike looking, RF.

[RadioFan]

I'm neither on the religous right nor anxious for Armageddon.

Don't take the third strike looking, RF.

Just checkin' to see if you were paying attention to "Rexella" (as if that's her real name), pop.

Good to know you're not in Glenn Beck's camp, nor the rest of these nutjobs on TV and radio here, who can't wait to talk about how the enemy is just "waiting for the 12th caliph, to establish his Islamic kingdom," or some moronic bullshit, along with the added "Iran is about to take over the world! And China and North Korea are about to invade Israel! The Kingdoms of the East!

Amazing how that paradigm shifted from the Soviet Union ('sup Hal Lindsey) to China and NK.

Sounds a lot to me like there's a vocal minority of fundamentalists here, who can't wait to be saved.

Invade Iran!

Hallelujah!

Was that the third strike? Or was it NK?

[RadioFan]

[poptart]

I've watched them, and my take is that they are not bad people.
Rexxie's a bit Joan Riversish right about now, but hey, back in the day I bet she was at least a good solid ....... 6-or-so.

Sure, I'd sit down for Sunday brunch at Luby's with Jack and Rexella.
Pretty sure I'd doze off without a quick BLACK after-dinner coffee though.

Jack knows the Bible, but I'm afraid his focus is leading sheep down a less-than-desirable path.

In John 21:15, 16 and 17, Jesus told believers to "feed my lambs, ... feed my sheep, ... feed my lambs."


Hyper-analysis of 'end times' possibilities is malnurishing Jesus' sheep, IMO.

[RadioFan]

Pop ... RACK

About my post, in response to Truman's? I'm curious as to your thoughts.

I don't see this as WWIII, not just yet. Nor do I equate this war with WWII.

I do see it as such (WWIII), if we leave Iraq now. No way we're leaving anytime soon though.

To me, the analogy, be it right or wrong, is a bullshit point. What's important is what we do now. We're still in a transition stage there, and like I said, we fucked up, big-time, in our first year there.

20-20 hindsight, I know.

For the future? Truman's war on terror?

How do we fight an enemy we can't see?

1. Stop fucking around (i.e. stop being concerned about elections so much that you have to set up a heated tent for AM radio hosts, outside the White House), and establish power-sharing in Iraq.

2. Stop telling the American public it's a "war on terror," when it's really a war against "Religious radicals/fanatics."

3. Despite all our internal differences, despite our democracy, despite our apparent "strife" ... The West WILL STAND. Of that, there can be NO DOUBT. With particular stress on the INTERNET, as a WESTERN TECHNOLOGY.

Actually, No. 3 should be No. 1, and No. 2 should be No. 3, but I digress.

[poptart]

Whether it's WWIII or not right now, I dunno.
Maybe depends on semantics.

THE world war started in Genesis 3 v. 6, when man became separated from God and fell into curses and influence from Satan.
Not the answer you're looking for, and I won't persist in a theological frame of mind in this forum or Bushice will hate me ..... more.

Long story short, you CAN compare WWII to this current 'war on terror' in some respects, and not in others.
Truman is right in that .... war is war, and you've got to fight it like you intend to WIN.
A lot of the discontentment with the current effort is from those on the RIGHT, who believe Bush & Co have not been nearly aggressive enough.
Hey, we're IN Iraq, like it or not, and we can NOT afford to leave there with business unfinished.
If the United States were to leave with that place 'up for grabs' it would foster a WHOLE hell of a lot more radical killahs than we are dealing with around the globe right now.
The great satan tucked tail and RAN .... ?
BWAAAA HAHAHAHA
Every consonant-lacking camel-fucker on planet earth would want to sign on the dotted line for Allah at that point.

I believe mvscal stated accurately in a Main Street thread that the US calls it a 'war on terror' and not a 'war on Islamosfacism' (or something similar) because inclusion of a form of the word ISLAM would serve to alientate some of our important 'friends' around the world.

I believe the efforts we see now in Iraq and Afghanistan are the start of what will turn into a much BIGGER campaign which will kick off when the U.S. mainland gets hit with another terror attack ..... bigger than 9/11.
When that happens the shit's gonna hit the fan in a BIG-TIME way.

WWIII .... ?

Probably.

[Mister Bushice]

if the country ends up essentially right back where it started when we leave - is that progress?

We can't stop the sectarian bullshit. 1200 plus years of fighting doesn't stop because we say so.

However, I spotted an article last night that indicated Bush is taking a harder line with the iraq government. About fucking time, if he actually follows through.

This "government" won't stand on its own feet unless it is forced to do so. As long as they continue to rely on us to do their dirty work ( like policing the streets looking for religious fanatics) Nothing will change.

My money is on some western hating Saddam replacement to pop up in power within a few years of our departure. Bam! right back where they started from.

Not the answer you're looking for, and I won't persist in a theological frame of mind in this forum or Bushice will hate me ..... more

Incorrect I don't hate you at all.

But there is a theology fourm here for all of your bedtime stories about god. ;)

[BSmack]

Right. Guess you forgot the part where America rebuilds infrastructure, establishes stable, freely-elected government, and protects the interests of its vanquished foes.

All of which it is becoming painful obvious will never happen. Which is why we never should have invaded to begin with.

…And the Terrorists ain’t exactly manufacturing their weapons locally either, B. Funny how your pals at CNN have managed to overlook this story.

Should we start bombing box cutter factories?

So you’re advocating that we attack Jihadist Iran? Nicely done, B. Welcome to the Side of Reason.

Try Saudi Arabia.

http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicsect ... habi_2.htm

Oh, I dunno, B. The German/Italian/Japanese confederation was simply described as the “Triple Axis” or “Axis Powers” here in fly-over country. That said, B, I’m still waiting on that named German attack on US soil.

You do realize that Germany declared war on the United States before the US declared war on Germany?

Ever tire of waking up wrong, Brian?

I have a bridge you might be interested in.



Seriously Truman, you have to be the most gullible person alive to buy into the idea that the Weekly Standard just 'happened" to obtain a "top secret" memo. A memo, btw which has not been substantiated in any way since then. In fact, the 9-11 Commission has long since refuted the idea that Saddam and bin Laden had any meaningful relationship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun16.html

Saddam=Hiter? Fuzzy math, Bri. Naw, War=War, a concept that is apparently beyond your scope of comprehension.

We're simply talking about threat potential, not ideological similarities. Complain to Michael Savage if you must. He and his ilk are the ones tossing the "Islamofascist" label around, not I.

[poptart]

What do you call 'em ... ?

[Mister Bushice]

depends on who is doing the calling, it appears.

[Felix]

What do you call 'em ... ?

i call them "freedom fighters"........

but only to piss you righties off........

[Truman]

Good to see you, RaF. Believe it or not, I appreciate - and actually happen to agree with - most of your narrative. Trouble is, some folks have allowed their prejudices and rage to miss the premise of the entire discussion.

Instead, they have conveniently ignored American history and trotted out secular-progressive academicians and leftist analysis under the guise of news reporting in a vain attempt to hijack this thread – all with the same impact and resultant effects of a fiery plane-crash in a rural Pennsylvania field….

Seriously, RaF: I’m trying to decide whether I’m more amused - or bemused - by some of the responses that I’ve read to this thread. I guess some people just read what they wish to read…

Funny how a coupla WWII allegories can drive some folks towards a lip-lock on the proverbial third rail. Last I checked, this is still a “smack” board. And, unlike NFL call-outs, I’m pleased to see that our own obdurate, obstinate BSmack swallowed the bait whole before running deep.

Speaking of which: How’s that document search for a German attack on U.S. soil workin’ out for ya these days, B? Keep pluggin’ away, Tiger! Even money sez that you’re sure to dig up a Post “article” to “prove” your point.

BSmack would argue with algae on an Antarctic ice floe. *Sigh. As predictable as lemmings and mackerel. But I digress….

So please humor me, RaF, while I try again. I’ll try to keep this in simple terms so that even history-ignorant near-Canadians in Upstate New York can keep up.

Let me be clear:

The only parallel that I might ever draw between Iraq and Germany is that both campaigns feature American tanks, bombs, guns, and personnel in the field, and that both of them were/are wars of attrition – granted, the latter a concept that a select (hand-wringing) few on this Board and in this Country have trouble wrapping their collective arms around.

I never suggested that Saddam was Hitler incarnate.

I never asserted that Iraq posed a greater threat to the United States than Nazi Germany.

I never proposed that World War II anywhere resembled America’s current effort in Iraq.

I did, however, assert that Hitler was simply a generation-or-two too early when he predicted that the collective will of Western Society would be severely compromised by its media and that America – and the sons of her freely-elected, democratic republic – wouldn’t have the schock to sustain a prolonged war against Nazi Germany because her Free Press would never stand for it….

Disagree?

Here’s six minutes of your life that you’ll never get back. Sadly, the American victims of these cowardly attacks will no longer have the option of clicking the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujMVxZol0fk

What, no body bags? Props to CNN for keepin’ it real. Funny, I have trouble picturing Ed Murrow, Ernie Pyle or even a young Uncle Walter bringing the American people such a “scintillating” news story.

Let me repeat:

…We are a society driven by pictures. Media-produced pictures. Can you imagine the outcry of the American people had CNN been around back in 1944 to bring us footage of the 33,000 American dead and wounded during the Battle of Hurtgen Forest (the Ardennes) or the 26,000 casualties suffered by our Marines at Iwo Jima? We lose almost as many men on a beach in Normandy in a single day as we have in three years of fighting in Iraq, yet the New York Times and the Washington Post would have you believing that we are having our asses handed to us on a plate!

Salient commentary is welcome. All else will be run by poptart at his leisure….

[BSmack]

I did, however, assert that Hitler was simply a generation-or-two too early when he predicted that the collective will of Western Society would be severely compromised by its media and that America – and the sons of her freely-elected, democratic republic – wouldn’t have the schock to sustain a prolonged war against Nazi Germany because her Free Press would never stand for it….

Nobody with an IQ over room temp thinks Saddam posed any kind of threat.

That is why in order for your comparison to have any validity whatsofuckingever, you need to show that Saddam's Iraq possessed a threat to the US worthy of a long, prolonged and bloody war of attrition. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and chainsaws.

[Mister Bushice]

Good to see you, RaF. Believe it or not, I appreciate - and actually happen to agree with - most of your narrative. Trouble is, some folks have allowed their prejudices and rage to miss the premise of the entire discussion.

Instead, they have conveniently ignored American history and trotted out secular-progressive academicians and leftist analysis under the guise of news reporting in a vain attempt to hijack this thread – all with the same impact and resultant effects of a fiery plane-crash in a rural Pennsylvania field….

Oh come on now Truman, no one tried to hijack this thread. In fact, it has stayed on topic better than most. The premise was broad ranged enough to invite related side topics.

Funny how a coupla WWII allegories can drive some folks towards a lip-lock on the proverbial third rail. Last I checked, this is still a “smack” board. And, unlike NFL call-outs, I’m pleased to see that our own obdurate, obstinate BSmack swallowed the bait whole before running deep.

Well, this is more of a political argument and discussion board. At least it's intended to be.

Grade school insults and baiting are not encouraged here. That's what the cul de smack forum is for. I can make my point without calling you stupid, even if I disagree with you. Bsmack isn't stupid he's opinionated, and having to wade through tedious insults that don't have the benefit of even being humorous seems like a total waste of time to me, at least in this forum.

Speaking of which: How’s that document search for a German attack on U.S. soil workin’ out for ya these days, B? Keep pluggin’ away, Tiger! Even money sez that you’re sure to dig up a Post “article” to “prove” your point.

THIS is a fine example of a side topic. You are not entirely blameless, but really it's not that big of a deal.
as a side note, around Jan 13, 1942 the Germans DID begin a U-boat offensive along the east coast of the US, mostly reconnaisance and hit and run. I know a U boat was sunk off the southen coast of maine that year.

The only parallel that I might ever draw between Iraq and Germany is that both campaigns feature American tanks, bombs, guns, and personnel in the field, and that both of them were/are wars of attrition – granted, the latter a concept that a select (hand-wringing) few on this Board and in this Country have trouble wrapping their collective arms around.

Maybe that's because this war has turned into a sectarian civil war?

I never suggested that Saddam was Hitler incarnate.

I never asserted that Iraq posed a greater threat to the United States than Nazi Germany.

I never proposed that World War II anywhere resembled America’s current effort in Iraq.

This is all true, but you began the discussion with a veiled comparison between WWII and the Iraq war, as if they were the same type of conflict, and they're not. I'll continue this thought below.

I did, however, assert that Hitler was simply a generation-or-two too early when he predicted that the collective will of Western Society would be severely compromised by its media and that America – and the sons of her freely-elected, democratic republic – wouldn’t have the schock to sustain a prolonged war against Nazi Germany because her Free Press would never stand for it….

Well that's true you did say that, but you paraphrased hitler, he didn't include the media the way it is today. The media back then was a propaganda tool and each side used it mostly on their own people, and it was nothing remotely global like it is now. In terms of how we entered the war and why and how the US people felt when we did enter it, that war was nothing like this one. That war was one that celebrities enlisted in to fight! If Hitler had been as contained as Saddam was, we would not have entered WWII.

And for perspective comparison, we did not enter WWII until 1942, about 3 years after it began but all of europe was already engaged in it, as well as northern Africa and the middle east. We were witnesses to hitlers march across Europe and listened to news reports of his ships and subs in the atlantic, sinking british ships and being spotted off the eastern US coast, then Pearl Harbor happened. It didn't take much to convince the American people to go to war after that. Prior to that? Yes, I do believe there would have been some grumbling. Americans didn't want to be involved in another war, but that clinched it. Japans attack brought it home.

While here and now, we invaded iraq without anything near the same level of worldwide support or threat (comparative to hitler). How would you expect the media to react, comparatively, to those two situations? Do you really think that the media of WWII would have the same viewpoint of the iraq war as it did WWII?

The government propaganda machine was really what hitler overlooked. What was printed was controlled and there were no overseas news outlets that americans had access to. The point of view we were given was a government one, but aside from that americans believed it was the right thing to do.

Here’s six minutes of your life that you’ll never get back. Sadly, the American victims of these cowardly attacks will no longer have the option of clicking the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujMVxZol0fk

What, no body bags? Props to CNN for keepin’ it real. Funny, I have trouble picturing Ed Murrow, Ernie Pyle or even a young Uncle Walter bringing the American people such a “scintillating” news story.

This ^ is only gonna head this thread off on a tangent, ya know. ;)

…We are a society driven by pictures. Media-produced pictures. Can you imagine the outcry of the American people had CNN been around back in 1944 to bring us footage of the 33,000 American dead and wounded during the Battle of Hurtgen Forest (the Ardennes) or the 26,000 casualties suffered by our Marines at Iwo Jima? We lose almost as many men on a beach in Normandy in a single day as we have in three years of fighting in Iraq, yet the New York Times and the Washington Post would have you believing that we are having our asses handed to us on a plate!

The same could be said for every war back into time. The Civil war was truly awful.

However, this is the same thing as saying "Which team was better, the 1985 Bears or the 1972 dolphins" You just can't make comparisons. Too much is different.

My opinion? I think that if americans were also shown what hitler was doing in the concentration camps along with the scenes of those battles, they wouild have stayed the course. No one knew about auschwitz until after the war, but if they had seen those pictures, that atom bomb might have been dropped on Berlin.

[Mister Bushice]

…We are a society driven by pictures. Media-produced pictures. Can you imagine the outcry of the American people had CNN been around back in 1944 to bring us footage of the 33,000 American dead and wounded during the Battle of Hurtgen Forest (the Ardennes) or the 26,000 casualties suffered by our Marines at Iwo Jima? We lose almost as many men on a beach in Normandy in a single day as we have in three years of fighting in Iraq, yet the New York Times and the Washington Post would have you believing that we are having our asses handed to us on a plate!

The same could be said for every war back into time. The Civil war was truly awful.

No, it couldn't. We did not have a free press during WW2. Every newsreel, every new story, every photograph was vetted by the Office of Censorship before being released to the public.

A free press is an absolute liability in the prosecution of any war.

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the fact that in every war the reality of it would cause outcry.

But there is nothing we can do about the free press. It is a reality that has to be accepted.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

A free press is an absolute liability in the prosecution of any war.

Quite right. Let's keep the free press and abolish war.

[Mister Bushice]

But there is nothing we can do about the free press. It is a reality that has to be accepted.

Like fuck there isn't. What part of The Office of Censorship created by executive order are you struggling to comprehend?Lincoln also shut down some of the most egregious papers during the Civil War also.

There is absolutely no reason we must or even should tolerate a "free press" during war.

yes well, good luck shutting down the worldwide free press. Let me know how that works out for you.

[RadioFan]

You withdraw their security and arrest them or simply shoot them on sight.

Sounds good.

-- N. Korea

[Mister Bushice]

Well still, dream on. It will never happen, and I'd bet they'd find a way in, anyway. It wouldn't take too many of them to get inside, and something tells me that the insurgents would use that to their advantage by releasing onto the internet their own doctored version of what was happening there, in complete contrast to the whitehousewashed version we would be releasing.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Well still, dream on. It will never happen, and I'd bet they'd find a way in, anyway.

Sure, a tiny handful would. They wouldn't matter and would be easily discredited, though.

Your Stalinist wet dream is making Phibes blush.

[BSmack]

Propaganda is a valid tool. It's a pity we are so pathetically inept in its employment. It could save us a lot of trouble.

The GOP has proven quite capable in the propaganda field.

sin

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Propaganda is a valid tool. It's a pity we are so pathetically inept in its employment. It could save us a lot of trouble.

Although at times I ridicule you, I certainly would never discourage you or others like you from helping America backslide into
a Third World, tinpot dictatorship.

You keep shitting up your Constitution, and I'll keep making popcorn, reaching for a icy cold one and finding a comfy spot from
where to watch you paranoid mental cases devour yourselves.

Seriously, this is better than Pay-Per-View entertainment, 'cause it's happening to you.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

You should. The Canadian Anschluss would be the first thing that happens quickly followed by the Final Solution to the illegal immigration problem.

I do sincerely hope we get over our childish obsession with democracy fairly soon. It was merely an experiment and it has clearly outlived its usefullness.

You are out of your mind, truly.

[Mister Bushice]

You're certainly a little off kilter today, mvscal. No freedom of the press, no more democracy, Americans are all tards, dipshits, dumbfucks, mouth breathers, mongoloids, freaks, perverts and lunatics.

Did you fall off the freedom of the west cruise ship into the China sea over the weekend or something?

[Cuda]

Americans are all tards, dipshits, dumbfucks, mouth breathers, mongoloids, freaks, perverts and lunatics.

Yes. I'd say well over 90% of Americans fall into one of those categories. Are you disputing that?.

Looks like somebody had Jury Duty this morning.

[Mister Bushice]

No, I'm not disputing it. Just pointing out that you sounded more like phibes yesterday, is all.

[BSmack]

Not even. My model is the Augustan Principate not Soviet thuggery.

When America is ravaged by 100 years of civil war you might have a point.

[BSmack]

I'm being proactive...unless of course you want bloated oligarchs dragging us through 100 years of civil war.

The answer to that conundrum is democracy, not one "Uber Oligarch".

[LTS TRN 2]

Whoah babs! Stop goose-stepping for a minute, sit down, read a little Mein Kampf...and relax.

Okay, so this fake thread got knocked on its ass in the first six posts.

There is no accurate comparison between WWII and our invasion of Iraq--except one that compares our current blunderous blitz to the Nazis themselves as they invaded Europe while claiming to fight "terrorists."

And "truman" immediately showed himself to be a fatuous ditto-head/O'Reilly clown...

Poptart tried pathetically to state that he's not a stone Born-Again apocalypse panter--and immediately launched into ther standard lunacy of tedious quotes and gibberish.

But really, babs gets Best Of Thread poster on this one for the classic Waiting For Augustus meltdown. Goebbels couldn't have said it better--'specially the snarling contempt for the volk--very Himmlerian as well. But Einstein in fact did say it better:

"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time; the terror of their tyrany, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistancy."

I suppose one has to be a mathematician to fully appreciate that slap, but it can at least provide an example of style.

[BSmack]

But really, babs gets Best Of Thread poster on this one for the classic Waiting For Augustus meltdown. Goebbels couldn't have said it better--'specially the snarling contempt for the volk--very Himmlerian as well. But Einstein in fact did say it better:

"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time; the terror of their tyrany, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistancy."

I suppose one has to be a mathematician to fully appreciate that slap, but it can at least provide an example of style.

I prefer Hermann Göring's conversation with Gustave Gilbert for it's brutal simplicity.

Göring "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Göring "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Recent American history certainly has shown how naive Gilbert was and how prescient Göring was.

[Mister Bushice]

That or what a bunch of made up bullshit the quote is.

Doesn't matter. It's true either way.

[Dr_Phibes]

Not even. My model is the Augustan Principate not Soviet thuggery.

Bullshit, you've been reading Victor Davis Hanson again. That's pure Strauss - everytime an IED goes off, some administration editorialist/idealogue/no-mind fires off a memo about Greek vases, The Gates Of Hercules, nihilism and the Weimar Republic.

Leave that sort of nonsense for Dio.

[Mister Bushice]

Not even. My model is the Augustan Principate not Soviet thuggery.

You want an autocrat? Isn't that what we have now?

[BSmack]

That or what a bunch of made up bullshit the quote is.

Link?

[BSmack]

You first, dickhead.

Go to a library and check out Nuremberg Diary.

[Truman]

Oh come on now Truman, no one tried to hijack this thread. In fact, it has stayed on topic better than most. The premise was broad ranged enough to invite related side topics.

Whoopsie! Looks like somebody missed the [hyperbole][/hyperbole] tags. How ‘bout I post a couple of pictures for you next time Bushie, just so's you can keep up…?

Well, this is more of a political argument and discussion board. At least it's intended to be.

Grade school insults and baiting are not encouraged here. That's what the cul de smack forum is for. I can make my point without calling you stupid, even if I disagree with you. Bsmack isn't stupid he's opinionated, and having to wade through tedious insults that don't have the benefit of even being humorous seems like a total waste of time to me, at least in this forum.

Well, now, if you had a developed sense of humor, Bushie…

BTW, I would be the LAST person on this Board to suggest that BSmack is stupid.. Stubborn? Hell yes. B sets the standard for Missouri mules. But believe it or not, Bushie, I have a helluva lot of respect for BSmack. Sumbitch could successfully argue Canadian geese to fly north to the Arctic Circle for the winter.

But I digress. Lemme summarize: You’re looking to hold this sordid clambake to a higher standard. Oh, I see ya workin’, Bushie: Sorta like banning water-boarding to suspected al-Quaida terrorists and extending American due process to Gitmo detainees. Hell, why not issue them driver’s licenses, offer 'em in-state tuition for their kids, and extend them voting rights?

No smack in politics?!

Yo, B, I gotta a buyer for that bridge yer hawkin’

Get over yourself, Bushice. Tell that to the late Ma Richards.

x ∞

Speaking of which: How’s that document search for a German attack on U.S. soil workin’ out for ya these days, B? Keep pluggin’ away, Tiger! Even money sez that you’re sure to dig up a Post “article” to “prove” your point.

THIS is a fine example of a side topic. You are not entirely blameless, but really it's not that big of a deal.
as a side note, around Jan 13, 1942 the Germans DID begin a U-boat offensive along the east coast of the US, mostly reconnaisance and hit and run. I know a U boat was sunk off the southen coast of maine that year.

…And to think of the thousands of cod and the scores of sea otters that gave their lives to defend the United States Continental Shelf against Nazi attack.
At least BSmack has sense enough to ignore the question….

The only parallel that I might ever draw between Iraq and Germany is that both campaigns feature American tanks, bombs, guns, and personnel in the field, and that both of them were/are wars of attrition – granted, the latter a concept that a select (hand-wringing) few on this Board and in this Country have trouble wrapping their collective arms around.

Maybe that's because this war has turned into a sectarian civil war?

You’d be right… well, if you were right. Sectarian civil war? Try al-Quaida cells seeking to spread civil discontent.. We’re kicking their ass, but you won’t find this fact reported on CNN....

I never suggested that Saddam was Hitler incarnate.

I never asserted that Iraq posed a greater threat to the United States than Nazi Germany.

I never proposed that World War II anywhere resembled America’s current effort in Iraq.

This is all true, but you began the discussion with a veiled comparison between WWII and the Iraq war, as if they were the same type of conflict, and they're not.

No I didn’t. You read what you wish to read. Veiled comparison? Then lemme break it down into terms that even you can understand, Bushie: Hitler sez you’re French.

I did, however, assert that Hitler was simply a generation-or-two too early when he predicted that the collective will of Western Society would be severely compromised by its media and that America – and the sons of her freely-elected, democratic republic – wouldn’t have the schock to sustain a prolonged war against Nazi Germany because her Free Press would never stand for it….

Well that's true you did say that, but you paraphrased hitler, he didn't include the media the way it is today. The media back then was a propaganda tool and each side used it mostly on their own people, and it was nothing remotely global like it is now. In terms of how we entered the war and why and how the US people felt when we did enter it, that war was nothing like this one. That war was one that celebrities enlisted in to fight! If Hitler had been as contained as Saddam was, we would not have entered WWII.

Arrogant prick. What about all the police officers, firefighters, investment brokers, stock traders, and the odd football player – successful people from all walks of life - that enlisted in our country’s military after 9-11? And what about the countless thousands of volunteer soldiers that continually re-enlist and extend their tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And for perspective comparison, we did not enter WWII until 1942, about 3 years after it began but all of europe was already engaged in it, as well as northern Africa and the middle east. We were witnesses to hitlers march across Europe and listened to news reports of his ships and subs in the atlantic, sinking british ships and being spotted off the eastern US coast, then Pearl Harbor happened. It didn't take much to convince the American people to go to war after that. Prior to that? Yes, I do believe there would have been some grumbling. Americans didn't want to be involved in another war, but that clinched it. Japans attack brought it home.

If you had a counter-point somewhere here, Bushie, I musta missed it… Terrorists truck-bombed our Marine barracks in Lebanon; reduced a couple of embassies in Africa to rubble; punched a hole in the US Cole and attacked the World Trade Center. All of this before Osama bin Laden’s minions slammed jets into the Twin Towers and Pentagon, Over 3,000 American non-combatants perished. One might hope that these attacks would’ve “brought it home.”

While here and now, we invaded iraq without anything near the same level of worldwide support or threat (comparative to hitler). How would you expect the media to react, comparatively, to those two situations? Do you really think that the media of WWII would have the same viewpoint of the iraq war as it did WWII?

I do not accept your premise. Even the governing body of FDR's UN suggested that Iraq was a rogue state and needed to nr dealt with. But in order of the questions you posed:
1) Americans first, journalists second. Unlike CNN and the New York Times.
2) Yes. Except CNN and the New York Times.

The government propaganda machine was really what hitler overlooked. What was printed was controlled and there were no overseas news outlets that americans had access to. The point of view we were given was a government one, but aside from that americans believed it was the right thing to do.

Wrong. Read Ambrose’s account. What Hitler didn’t reconcile was the degree of patriotism exhibited by America’s journalists in the field. If you had ever studied World War II, you wouldn’t even consider the question.

…We are a society driven by pictures. Media-produced pictures. Can you imagine the outcry of the American people had CNN been around back in 1944 to bring us footage of the 33,000 American dead and wounded during the Battle of Hurtgen Forest (the Ardennes) or the 26,000 casualties suffered by our Marines at Iwo Jima? We lose almost as many men on a beach in Normandy in a single day as we have in three years of fighting in Iraq, yet the New York Times and the Washington Post would have you believing that we are having our asses handed to us on a plate!

The same could be said for every war back into time. The Civil war was truly awful.

However, this is the same thing as saying "Which team was better, the 1985 Bears or the 1972 dolphins" You just can't make comparisons. Too much is different.

My opinion? I think that if americans were also shown what hitler was doing in the concentration camps along with the scenes of those battles, they wouild have stayed the course. No one knew about auschwitz until after the war, but if they had seen those pictures, that atom bomb might have been dropped on Berlin.

The 101st Airborne killed an estimated 50,000 NVA while losing 500 brave American soldiers during the Tet Offensive.yet American newspapers reported this battle as an unmitigated disaster to the American people.

And the people bought it.

Can’t make comparisons between wars? Whatever, dude…

[Truman]

I did, however, assert that Hitler was simply a generation-or-two too early when he predicted that the collective will of Western Society would be severely compromised by its media and that America – and the sons of her freely-elected, democratic republic – wouldn’t have the schock to sustain a prolonged war against Nazi Germany because her Free Press would never stand for it….

Nobody with an IQ over room temp thinks Saddam posed any kind of threat.

Revisionist history much, B?

Nobody except President George W. Bush; Prime Minister Tony Blair; the United States House of Representatives; the United States Senate; the British House of Commons; the British House of Lords; the Central Intelligence Agency; MI5; and countless other free world intelligence agencies and allies. Other than those, you're dead on, B!

That is why in order for your comparison to have any validity whatsofuckingever, you need to show that Saddam's Iraq possessed a threat to the US worthy of a long, prolonged and bloody war of attrition. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and chainsaws.

I don’t need to show dick, B. Apparently, you elected to sleep through the last five 9-11 State of the Union addresses. Apples and chainsaws? Liberal Democrats and Patriots would be a more accurate depiction....

[BSmack]

Nobody with an IQ over room temp thinks Saddam posed any kind of threat.

Revisionist history much, B?

Nobody except President George W. Bush; Prime Minister Tony Blair; the United States House of Representatives; the United States Senate; the British House of Commons; the British House of Lords; the Central Intelligence Agency; MI5; and countless other free world intelligence agencies and allies. Other than those, you're dead on, B!

I should have amended that to say "posed a threat to the United States". He certainly posed a threat to his own people. And there is no doubt he WISHED to pose a threat to the United States. But the fact remains that as he was contained prior to 2003, Saddam posed ZERO threat to the United States or to US interests.

I await your yellowcake memo.

That is why in order for your comparison to have any validity whatsofuckingever, you need to show that Saddam's Iraq possessed a threat to the US worthy of a long, prolonged and bloody war of attrition. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and chainsaws.

I don’t need to show dick, B. Apparently, you elected to sleep through the last five 9-11 State of the Union addresses. Apples and chainsaws? Liberal Democrats and Patriots would be a more accurate depiction....

Saddam had no WMDs and no millitary capable of resisting the US for even 1 month. Even BEFORE Gulf War one he was incapable of doing anything save provoking a 7 year bloody stalemate with Iran and getting his ass kicked for invading a country the size of Rhode Island. I don't give a shit what Chimpy said in his SOTU addresses, Iraq posed NO threat whatsoever to the US in 2003.

[Gunslinger]

I should have amended that to say "posed a threat to the United States".

And you would still be wrong, you fucking moron.

And your going to prove again how Saddam bombed Oklahoma City?

I think you'd be funny homeless. Your random rants to strangers about your fucking loony conspiracies would earn you at least a 6 pack of Tall Cans for a days worth of work. When you got real broke, you could always suck dick for money. With the amount of dick you love sucking, you could support a meth habit also. At the same time, I wouldnt have to worry about high crime amongst blacks, because they would all be in your line.

[Diogenes]

Not even. My model is the Augustan Principate not Soviet thuggery.

...an IED goes off, some administration editorialist/idealogue/no-mind fires off a memo about Greek vases, The Gates Of Hercules

Actually Augustus was Roman. You're probabably thinking Pericles.





And leave me out of this shit thread.