Bush is a Nazi?

*d*

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
1,621
12
38
Originally posted by papasmerf
When you say things like that. Hillery, you do make me wonder. [/B]

Hillery? The name is *d*. If you're trying to be facetious and calling me Hillary(with an 'a') to imply that I'm a member of the US democratic party, then I don't get it. I'm Canadian and both left and right US political parties are of little concern to me.

Hitler was out to dominate the world. And I'm totally against ANYONE doing such a thing.

d
 

monkeylove

Senor Monkey
Jun 12, 2002
272
0
0
The lunatic fringe
*d* don't sweat the "all or nothing crowd". They just like blanket slogans like:

---

If you are not with us you are against us.

Any criticism of Dubya is an attack on the US

Iraq has WMD

Iraq was responsible together with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks

Saddam and Osama bin Ladin are best buddies

If you do not support the war you are not patriotic

---

The neocons are undoubtedly Nationalistic!

Even though Dubya suddenly sees the UN as relevant and now also admits to fabricated evidence and that:

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with ... September 11."

You will not see any retraction or admission from these staunch "patriots". Hell we are all "red tories", "bleeding heart liberals", "pinkos", "tree huggers" or what ever else will "clearly" show that we are nuts.

A link to the spoon-feeding CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/18/sprj.irq.blix.bush/index.html

BTW Dubya is NOT a member of the National Socialist Party. I think that in fact socialism is not one of his interests. Yet the Nationalism part of the satire is noted.
 

Ripper77

Banned
Oct 30, 2002
213
0
0
PENNSYLVANIA
djk said:
You'll see this picture in the media very soon.

It will be photoshopped and used as a placard for all those protesting Mr. Bush's war/terror policies.

Cheers,

-djk
In defense of my commander and chief i would like to say we are liberaters.To the Canadians who never think a fight is worthwhile,what can i say Good luck.
 

djk

Active member
Apr 8, 2002
5,949
0
36
the hobby needs more capitalism
<To the Canadians who never think a fight is worthwhile,what can i say Good luck.>

I disagree with that. The cost of liberty is blood. If you're not willing to die for your liberty and someone is willing to die to invade yours, they've already won and you've lost.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Yes, ofcourse Saddam was a hippie who loved to make love not war. He never would have given terrorists weapons if the eye of the world was not upon him.
Of course, if Saddam had acted in a responsible manner none of this would have happened. Saddam simply said to the world, "Trust me, I got rid of my WMD" and provided no proof. He got the reaction that he though no one would have the balls to produce.
The simple fact is, Saddam would have re-established his WMD program the second the UN cleared him. Saddam being gone from power is not a major world problem. What is a major world problem is terrorism and those who supply them with weapons. First off the US list is Saddam, next is North Korea. The conventional wars we fight today avoid the nuclear wars we would fight tomorrow...
 

TravellingGuy

Member
May 22, 2002
580
0
16
53
Around the World
Ripper77 said:
To the Canadians who never think a fight is worthwhile,what can i say Good luck.
How quickly you forget the previous war, we were there and still are in Afghanistan, we just didnt buy the crock of shit about WMD or links to 9/11. Seems we were right... hmmm.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Lets not forget that Rummy went over to Iraq while serving Ron Reagan, and gave Saddam a whack of cash for "agricultural credits", which suprisingly freed up the exact same amout of $$ for Iraqi weapons purchases. And the pentagon was very happy to supply Saddam with intelligence.
Well, the world is not a fairy tale land. There was no way in hell the US was going to allow Iran to conquer Iraq and become the major power in the region. Perhaps you feel if we just sent Iran a bunch of flowers everything would have been ok?
Saddam however was not supposed to use the weapons on his own population...
Nor was Saddam supposed to invade any of his neighbors like Kuwait...
the US has not "liberated" Iraq, it has changed one military government, for a foreign military government.
Of course there's a military government for the time being. What else can there be? There was a military government in Japan after WWII as well!
The US has absolutely no desire to stay in Iraq one minute more than necessary. And of course the Iraqis have been able to hold more protests against the government in these past 6 months then they could for the entire reign of Saddam!!!!!
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,725
101
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Well

*d* said:
The world worries about imperial US. That's why you'll find the concern everywhere, including this board.

d
I would say that Empires intend to keep their conquests while the US intends to leave. I don't think we would be inviting other countries to the spoils if we had imperial intentions. But *d* may be right, perhaps Germany would have been better off under the smarter leader LOL.

OTB
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
So is that to say the use of WMD is perfectly okay when against helpless civilians in another country? Sorry, but I think most countries in the world would disapprove of the use of chemical warfare on any target....which then begs the question of why the US outfitted Iraq with it in the first place if it was never to be used?
They were to be used only against Iran. And prior to Iraq's using chemical weapons against Iran, Iran was winning and was about to push into Iraq.
The world isn't a fairy tale land. War is ugly and horrible. During WWII Hitler bombed London civilians repeatedly and the allies responded by fire bombing German cities.
Can you honestly say the Middle East and the world would have been better off if Iran had set up its own puppet government in Iraq?
War is brutal, ugly, horrible and people die in it. To think that war can be fought in a "dignified" manner and kill only soldiers is naive.
 

train

New member
Jul 29, 2002
6,991
0
0
Above 7
Aphrodite said:
I'm sorry but this title is again offensive. The thread is probably going to get very out of hand as well.

Looks like you called this right . All the usual suspects involved . I think they like repeating themselves every 2 weeks or so .
 
W

WhOiSyOdAdDy?

Aphrodite said:
I`m sorry but this title is again offensive. The thread is probably going to get very out of hand as well.
How is the title of this thread offensive???.. just because it contains the word "Nazi"???... get a life Jenn... and a sense of humour

Have you people any concept what percentage of our member base is Jewish... Let alone others who`s families were touched by the Nazi`s.
And your point is????.. that is all HISTORY.. but then, history is known to repeat itself, and if we do not use certain words & do not speak about certain events, we are not allowing ourselves to learn from the past and at least preventing those events from occuring again when history does repeat itself..
It is much easier to forget than to remember.

Can we have a little respect for those who have felt it affect their`s and their families lives. PLEASE![
The word "NAZI" used in the context as it was in the title of this thread has nothing to do with respecting or disprescting those people you mentioned..


Jenn.. I am surprised you have not deemed this post as "offensive" as well

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36803&perpage=10&pagenumber=1
Cardinal Fang said:
I believe Goober tried to get Alien but he was too busy being Mussolini`s right-hand general that in order to show their balls and make Italy a World Power even if Hitler and Goebbles didn`t like it.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Okay, you obviously still don't get it....the point is that if we are supposed to be so much more civilized in our Western democracies as to be something those in the Middle East are supposed to strive for, why is it okay for us to fight dirty (more dirty than those we are fighting against)? The point is that if you cannot lead by example, you are not actually leading at all. The US is somehow surprised that other countries should *dare* to want to develop WMD when they sanction their use whenever it is expedient. By resorting to the brutality and ugliness of war, evil has already won. I know full well that the world is not a "fairy tale land" but if the US is going to insist on playing with a dirty set of rules, I don't see how they can whine when others do the same to them.
Its not just the US, its the entire world that plays dirty. Yes, your Canadian government stayed out of the war but thats only because it was politically expediant to do so. Do you really believe that the Canadian government didn't cooperate on other levels?
This crap about war being civilized and not using what you have is what cause Vietnam to be such a disaster. You fight a war to win, nothing less. Of course basic ethics demand that more force than necessary not be used, but lets face it in the Middle East there's only one kind of force thats understood: total victory.
Do you really believe that Egypty and the other countries surrounding Israel wanted to make peace with Israel? The only reason there are peace treaties is because every time they invaded Israel, Israel kicked their but and then drove into their territory and took land. Suddenly war didn't seem like a good idea to these Arab states when they realized they could lose their own land!
Stop treating these nations like wayward children.
The allies tried the whole treaty thing in WWI, it didn't work out too well. Germany simply regrouped and attcked again. The only thing that kept Germany from coming back again was the allies demand for total unconditional surrender.
The only way to defend yourself against people who want to kill you is to kill them first.
The entire Middle East region counts on the fact that the US will not behave as they do. By attacking Iraq and allowing Israel to have a full war with Hammas, we treat these people like adults who are responsible for the choices of violence that they make. We are not Big Brother or Unlce America. If you threaten us you must deal with the consequences.
The point is if this had all been done with a little bit more morality and respect for human decency from day one, there'd be far less need for the ever-increasing wars. You'd think someone would have used the term "vicious cycle" in the US before now.
Yah right, terrorists and regimes that support them just need more hugs!
Prior to 9/11 the US was the number one provider of humanitarian aid to Afganistan and we had just come off of two military interventions to protect Muslims (Kosovo & Somolia). Yet Osama told the world we hate Muslims. Gee, I guess being the number one provider of charity and using your military to protect them is a real hating thing to do!
The fact you think making Iran, the largest supporter of terrorism in the world, the major nation power in the Middle East would have been a good thing shows just how naive you are.
The world is a game of life or death, not a game of checkers. Sometimes the lesser evil has to be supported...
 

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,737
393
83
The Keebler Factory
Some people really need to sit down and learn about history b/c they really are going to repeat it.

Hmmm, Total Victory in the Middle East. Let's see... who tried that and failed miserably? Could it be... the Soviets!?! The Afghans kicked their ass. The only true Total War for the USA is nuclear weapons, but they know if they were to use those the gloves would really come off and any credibility they have left would be flushed down the toilet.

The USA will not win in the Middle East, for a variety of reasons: religious differences, clash of culture and ethnicity, the history of imperialism in the region, lack of US credibility, etc. The Arabs, whatever their nationality, will never lay down to the USA - they will fight and fight and fight some more. American casualties in Iraq are approaching 10% - unsustainable losses.

IMO, the Americans dug themselves a huge hole (led by Bush jr.) when they flipped off the UN. An international (i.e. UN-sponsored) force is the only way to resolve the current quagmire in Iraq. However, even that is a risky proposition since Saddam is still alive. If I was responsible for deciding to commit my nation to the UN and the stabilization of Iraq, I definitely wouldn't be going until the USA captured/killed Saddam. And this decision would be a luxury I would have since the USA told me to kiss off at the start of the war...
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Hmmm, Total Victory in the Middle East. Let's see... who tried that and failed miserably? Could it be... the Soviets!?! The Afghans kicked their ass. The only true Total War for the USA is nuclear weapons, but they know if they were to use those the gloves would really come off and any credibility they have left would be flushed down the toilet
Actually the Soviets probably wouldn't have had such a hard time if we weren't supplying the rebels with technology and information. Secondly, total victory does not necessarily mean holding and keeping the land. The US isn't seeking to occupy any land for one minute longer than setting up some form of democratic government.
The previous dogma of proportional response only worked with a rational enemy, like the Soviets. When dealing with religious fanatics, the only answer is to kill them. The only disasterous part of the Afgan war after 9/11 was when they allowed fighters to simply give up their arms and go home. They simply regrouped in Pakistan.
The USA will not win in the Middle East, for a variety of reasons: religious differences, clash of culture and ethnicity, the history of imperialism in the region, lack of US credibility, etc. The Arabs, whatever their nationality, will never lay down to the USA - they will fight and fight and fight some more. American casualties in Iraq are approaching 10% - unsustainable losses.
The Arabs need to relearn their history. Their region has suffered just as much from their own imperialism as they have from European imperialism. The Muslim Turks had their own empire there not to long ago (as history goes). Their governments love to stir up anti-Americanism and Anti-Semetism because it keeps the population from realizing that their governments are keeping them poor and ignorant and plundering their natural resources for their own enjoyment and luxury. These governments support terrorism because they know they can't beat Israel in a real fight, and they count on the fact the US will keep back Israel's hand.
These Arab nations that pretend they care so much about the Palestians for some reason won't take in Palestinian refugees. Oh well, I guess they only care enough to support the killing of women and children but not to actually care for refugees.
As for US casualities, it appears that France and Germany really did support Saddam because they don't care if his people come back to power. It appears only the US cares to set up a real democracy that would truly give the Iraqi people rights and privileges of freedom.
IMO, the Americans dug themselves a huge hole (led by Bush jr.) when they flipped off the UN. An international (i.e. UN-sponsored) force is the only way to resolve the current quagmire in Iraq.
OK, no problem. The US will withdraw from the UN. See what the UN is able to accomplish then.
Oh ya, thats right, with Lybia on the UN Human Rights Commission who could possibly argue with the UN?
 
W

WhOiSyOdAdDy?

Winston said:
The US is going to set up a government that will give the illusion of freedom, while allowing US multinational corporations the right to exploit the oil. Fthe "Arab" world a little message about who is going to be on the side of Isreal.
Actually.. I have heard that the devalued US dollar has many people in the world worried. The dollar will not keep its value because of the debt and increased deficit spending under the current Bush government.

I have read somewhere that OPEC has been in talks to change the currency that the pirice of curde is traded in from US dollars to the Euro... with the US invading and occupying Iraq, this will delay OPEC's plans.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
setting up a "democratic" government, just like they have in Afghanistan? Or how about in Chile under Pinochet? The Baath Party in Iraq? Iran in 1959? In Central American in the 80's, the use of the US trained Death Squads was a real step to democracy...
Now I'm ROTLMAO. Please, I know liberalism hate this phrase but its one that is always needed: historical context. Communism was the global threat at the time and there were no real workable alternatives. This is a completely different enemy we're dealing with.
The US has no interest in setting up a democratic government in Iraq. The US is going to set up a government that will give the illusion of freedom, while allowing US multinational corporations the right to exploit the oil. Further, the US offer the new "government" protection, but setting up 2 - 5 US military bases.
Of course you noticed what a puppet government the Saudis were for us when our bases were there. And since the end of WWII we've had bases in Japan and Germany so I guess those aren't legitimate governments either.
Come on, quite with the liberal propaganda. Even most of the US Democrats have stopped with that stuff.
This war was not over WMD or terrorism. This war was over oil first and foremost. And about the US extending its military capabilities. For Wolfowitz and the boys, it was also about sending the "Arab" world a little message about who is going to be on the side of Isreal.
Once again, ROTFLMAO. This war was about all of the above. In this world oil is power, heck Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the oil embargo! Saddam knew that oil is power and thats why he took Kuwait. He was a loose canon the Middle East did not need. He already tried to assisinate Bush, Sr. and did have known terrorist contacts. He was not behind 9/11 but what the heck was stopping him from helping with another terror attack. AFterall, Saddam had a mural painted commemorating the 9/11 attacks! Once Osama had shown Saddam that he was a serious man with a plan, how long do you think if after restrictions would be lifted that Saddam would have hooked up with these guys?
If it was only about oil we could have just taken it in 1991. Do you really think we needed the Arab coalition partners to take the Iraqi oilfields?
Of course, I'm sure France's opposition to the war had nothing to do with all the money owed to it by Saddam which now will never be paid.
 
W

WhOiSyOdAdDy?

Aphrodite said:
Apparently... God... Either I am psychic or been on this board WAY too long.

WIYD... I tried to find a more polite way to say this... But I can not so G.F.Y.S. ;-)
I would say you are definitely not psychic.

"G.F.Y.S."... that is the best that you can come back with??.. but then I would not expect anything else.. I would have been very surprised if you were capable of a response indicative of some intelligence. tact or class.
 
Last edited:

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,737
393
83
The Keebler Factory
The USA has already lost the war in the Middle East. It's just a damn shame they haven't realized it yet.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,725
101
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
What!

Keebler Elf said:


The USA will not win in the Middle East, for a variety of reasons: religious differences, clash of culture and ethnicity, the history of imperialism in the region, lack of US credibility, etc. ....
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I think we are compelled to try. We are the only country with enough sway with Israel to broker a peace. The fact that both sides are so ridiculously polarized and there is little chance of success doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Keebler Elf said:


IMO, the Americans dug themselves a huge hole (led by Bush jr.) when they flipped off the UN. An international (i.e. UN-sponsored) force is the only way to resolve the current quagmire in Iraq.
I think the only difference would be guys with blue helmets would be getting ambushed instead of guys with brown helmets. I think the Iraqi's showed their fondness for the UN with the most recent bombing. And besides flipping off the UN and French is almost worth the pain;-)

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,725
101
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
What II!

Keebler Elf said:
.... American casualties in Iraq are approaching 10% - unsustainable losses.
.
10% of what? Two questions, how many guys have we lost in Iraq? How many guys did we loose in Vietnam (it's 58,000). Now defend unsustainable. I would say undesirable but not unsustainable. Or were you thinking of the Canadian defense forces?

OTB
 
Toronto Escorts