Latest polls: Hitler was right

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Leave that sort of nonsense for Dio.

Indeed.

[Mister Bushice]

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…

I believe that will happen when what gets posted here is actually humorous.

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.

How about just less childishness? Most of what you call "smack" was old in 6th grade. Grown men talking like children is not interesting.

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? [/quote ]

Anyone enlisting after 9-11 did so in the heat of emotion. And now several years down the road the military still can't enlist enough soldiers to prevent them from extending tours of duty of most of the soldiers over there even past the normal extensions.

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.”

Not to downplay the loss of life (and just to explain why they didn't have the impact of pearl harbor or 9-11) , but most of those attacks occurred in other countries and not here in the US, nor did they have the impact of 9-11 or PH because the loss of life was low and the incidents were usually attributed to a few individuals or claimed after the fact by Al Q, and not an entire country. Two guys in an inflatable boat blowing a hole in the cole, while a tragic loss of life, does not compare to what happened at pearl harbor. Attacks on Americans in middle eastern countries are not exactly a new thing. The 9-11 attacks were the first incidents that pointed out how woefully lax we were here in our own country, but invading iraq as a response to that attack? show me the connection between those two and how our involvement over there will prevent another attack here.

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.

You should try reading the news from other countries once in a while. We aren't depicted as the heroes and saviors we were in WWII, not by a ong shot.

…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…

Didn't you even read what I posted? I'm not talking about comparing anything more than the perceived importance of the wars, and vietnam is not in the comparison window here. US Involvement in WWII came to be viewed as a necessity by Americans because of the threat to the US that hitler and Japan were becoming / had become. You just cannot say the same thing about Iraq. You could about Al queda, and I hope we can get back around to fighting them someday (in a way that will more directly address the international threat they still are), and let the sunnis and shiites kill each other off without our troops in between.

[Mister Bushice]

Not in the places it matters. Iraq and afghanistan religious freak muslims aren't going to be attacking the US any time soon. The ones who will do that are already in place here, and in EUrope, and kiilling a bunch of sunnis and shiites in iraq ain't going to change that at all.

[Cuda]

Not in the places it matters. Iraq and afghanistan religious freak muslims aren't going to be attacking the US any time soon. The ones who will do that are already in place here, and in EUrope, and kiilling a bunch of sunnis and shiites in iraq ain't going to change that at all.

So you're saying we should be bombing the mosques in Buffalo?

I'm down with that.

[BSmack]

Not in the places it matters. Iraq and afghanistan religious freak muslims aren't going to be attacking the US any time soon. The ones who will do that are already in place here, and in EUrope, and kiilling a bunch of sunnis and shiites in iraq ain't going to change that at all.

So you're saying we should be bombing the mosques in Buffalo?

I'm down with that.

Got that shit under control.

sin

The Plummer

http://www.madania.org/english/site/fil ... dental.htm