For those who support the war on terror

[iblazethatkush]

Here's a quote by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Who knew he was such a smart guy
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
Actually Hitler didn't invent it, he just perfected it. But what he was trying to say is absolutely correct. Bush is the Hitler of today and his supporters are nazis.

 

[ViRedd]

"Bush is the Hitler of today and his supporters are nazis."

I was wondering ... did you look up the definition of NAZI and or FASCISM before you made that post?

Vi

 

[iblazethatkush]

"Bush is the Hitler of today and his supporters are nazis."

I was wondering ... did you look up the definition of NAZI and or FASCISM before you made that post?

Vi

No but I'll take Big E's word for it.

 

[ViRedd]

Eisenhower called Bush a Hitler and his followers Nazis? Gosh, I thought Eisenhower died before Bush was born. ~lol~

Vi

 

[closet.cult]

Here's a quote by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Who knew he was such a smart guy
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
Actually Hitler didn't invent it, he just perfected it. But what he was trying to say is absolutely correct. Bush is the Hitler of today and his supporters are nazis.

word.

preventative war is wrong. it is sleazy con by those who desire war. this is not an argument, vi.

that is the history and present of those in control of this nation. create a threat, fabricate a war, on and on. when will americans learn this about their controlers?

 

[Balzerismo]

The real terrorists are the major figure heads , the people in office and their damn propaganda machine Fox News.. we're all being fucked over !

 

[undertheice]

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
Bush is the Hitler of today and his supporters are nazis.

i might ask you to define preventative war.

was it a preventative measure for us to invade afghanistan? a country who's totalitarian regime openly supported the very terrorists who attacked the us with blatant disregard for civilian life and with no particular military target in mind. whose subjugation of the female half of its citizens made them little more than slaves and chattel.

was it a preventative measure for us to invade iraq? whose megalomaniacal leader thumbed his nose at the international community and ignored the mandates of that toothless hag, the united nations, whose only weapon seems to be appeasement. a country who's record on human rights was amongst the worst in the world and whose territorial ambitions were made plain by its military invasion of kuwait.

you will probably throw in that old line "it's all for the oil, why didn't we attack another country whose government was even worse". would you prefer that we declared war on twenty different countries at the same time? we chose the countries where american interests were concerned most. is that such a crime? our elected officials' first duty is to the welfare of this nation and that includes its economic well-being.

it's far too easy to toss around terms like "nazi" when speaking of an administration with which you don't agree. though i do believe that baby bush does lean a bit toward the fascist side of the equation, i think that the term nazi goes a bit too far. if you bother to look into the matter i think you might find that his fascist tendencies stem more from his christian fundamentalist beliefs than his financial or political ties. his greatest link to hitler is his overwhelming belief in the superiority of his chosen dogma.

 

[closet.cult]

i might ask you to define preventative war.

was it a preventative measure for us to invade afghanistan?

no, not exactly. if we fought with Afghanastan to find bin Ladin who was hiding out there, it was not preemptive.

was it a preventative measure for us to invade iraq?

yes. iraq had an asshole leader but he had made no direct threats to the u.s. we overthrew the iraq regime on the dubious claim that they 'might' be harboring or supporting terrorist activity, and they 'might' have WMAs.

this is the definition of preemptive war. forget the comparisions to hitler for the moment. if you don't see the iraq war as preemptive, you're deluting yourself. and if it don't see preemptive war as wrong, you're a warmonger.

a strike on iran would also be preemptive. they've made no threats or strikes to the u.s. therefor, no actions are nessasary.

whatever happened to peace? doesn't anyone want to live in a peaceful world these days?

 

[GrowRebel]

i might ask you to define preventative war.

was it a preventative measure for us to invade afghanistan? a country who's totalitarian regime openly supported the very terrorists who attacked the us with blatant disregard for civilian life and with no particular military target in mind.

...instead of investigating the lies of this illegitimate regime you've accepted them without question. That is your downfall. These countries did nothing to the US ... it's the terrorists that stole the government who are responsible ... you need only follow the money to find the truth.

... you need to check the video I'm posting.

 

[undertheice]

yes. iraq had an asshole leader but he had made no direct threats to the u.s. we overthrew the iraq regime on the dubious claim that they 'might' be harboring or supporting terrorist activity, and they 'might' have WMDs.

forget the bogus reasons given for the iraq invasion in the first place, they were just excuses for doing what seemed to be needed to be done. the facts seem to indicate that iraq did indeed aid in the training of terrorists and that they did have aspirations to attain nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. add into the mix the fact that saddam refused to abide by un guidelines and his recent history of aggression and i would say that any rational person might be tempted to think that his regime was a danger to the middle east and the rest of the world.

a strike on iran would also be preemptive. they've made no threats or strikes to the u.s. therefore, no actions are necessary.

wouldn't you consider arming our enemies in a time of war to be a threat? even if you discount the saber rattling and inflammatory rhetoric coming from teheran, the aiding of foreign fighters inside of iraq seems to put them firmly in the enemy camp. i do agree that an invasion of iran would be a foolish move (just as the iraq war was an idiotic decision), but should they openly cross the border or attack any of our allies in the area then military action should not be left completely off the table.

whatever happened to peace? doesn't anyone want to live in a peaceful world these days?

please don't get me wrong. a peaceful planet is the aim of any intelligent person (even those who make their living by war), but to hide your head in the sand is no way to achieve peace. i heartily agree that the iraq invasion was an asinine blunder, but once into the fray the us is obligated to see it through to some sort of conclusion. we must pay for our mistakes even if it means sacrificing our own. to do otherwise would be even more immoral than our original stupidity. it may seem callous, but that is one of the costs of being a world power.

 

[medicineman]

was it a preventative measure for us to invade afghanistan? a country who's totalitarian regime openly supported the very terrorists who attacked the us with blatant disregard for civilian life and with no particular military target in mind. whose subjugation of the female half of its citizens made them little more than slaves and chattel.


Well, now that you mention it, wasn't that the same country that we gave thousands of chinese made AK47s to instead of M-16s so it wouldn't look like we were arming them against Russia, plus stinger missles to take out the Russian helocopters?

was it a preventative measure for us to invade iraq? whose megalomaniacal leader thumbed his nose at the international community and ignored the mandates of that toothless hag, the united nations, whose only weapon seems to be appeasement. a country who's record on human rights was amongst the worst in the world and whose territorial ambitions were made plain by its military invasion of kuwait.

Now that you mention it, wasn't that the same country that we gave billions to, to help in the war against Iran? our great Buddy Saddam got a few gifts from the good old warmongers, The USA, before he invaded Kuwait.
It seems like one minute you are our friends and the next you are the enemy. I wonder why the majority of the world hates our guts?

 

[Kant]

i might ask you to define preventative war.

was it a preventative measure for us to invade afghanistan? a country who's totalitarian regime openly supported the very terrorists who attacked the us with blatant disregard for civilian life and with no particular military target in mind. whose subjugation of the female half of its citizens made them little more than slaves and chattel.

You pretty much answered your own question. It wasn't preventative because it was designed to prevent anything. It was purely retributive war.

was it a preventative measure for us to invade iraq? whose megalomaniacal leader thumbed his nose at the international community and ignored the mandates of that toothless hag, the united nations, whose only weapon seems to be appeasement. a country who's record on human rights was amongst the worst in the world and whose territorial ambitions were made plain by its military invasion of kuwait.

Yes. So he pissed off the U.N. So what if killed his own people. Look at half the country in africa that are ran by dictators. they are just as willing to kill people but why are we not so eager to go in there?

Name one country (except switzerland) that hasn't at one point in their history tried to expand their boarders through military might.

forget the bogus reasons given for the iraq invasion in the first place, they were just excuses for doing what seemed to be needed to be done. the facts seem to indicate that iraq did indeed aid in the training of terrorists and that they did have aspirations to attain nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. add into the mix the fact that saddam refused to abide by un guidelines and his recent history of aggression and i would say that any rational person might be tempted to think that his regime was a danger to the middle east and the rest of the world.

Are you saying that's ok to start a war and then justify it later? Saddam would not have obtained such control and maintained it with out being an intelligent man. Bush made it very clear that he thought Iraq was a "major threat" during the 2000 elections. Why would Saddam train terrorists, on his limited budget, and give Bush a legitimate reason to invade? He might have had the desire to make WMD but does that mean even the desire to build things might constitute a crime worthy of invasion?

 

[undertheice]

Well, now that you mention it, wasn't that the same country that we gave thousands of chinese made AK47s to instead of M-16s so it wouldn't look like we were arming them against Russia, plus stinger missiles to take out the Russian helicopters?

Now that you mention it, wasn't that the same country that we gave billions to, to help in the war against Iran? our great Buddy Saddam got a few gifts from the good old warmongers, The USA, before he invaded Kuwait.
It seems like one minute you are our friends and the next you are the enemy.

politics makes strange bedfellows and this is politics we're talking about, yesterday's ally is tomorrow's enemy and vice versa. harping on the mistakes of the past is almost as foolish as ignoring them. if the world existed in a static bubble, if friends remained friends and enemies remained enemies, then we could just talk out all our problems and peace would reign throughout the land. isn't that the current liberal mindset? unluckily things change and religious, political and economic realities force us all into places we would rather not go.

face it - the world sucks; get used to it, get over it and get on with your life.

I wonder why the majority of the world hates our guts?

and yet so many clamor to gain access to what we have. it seems we selfishly desire the best for ourselves and our children and we aren't willing to give it all away to anyone with an ax to grind. the weak will often hate the powerful, the poor will often hate the rich and the slave will often hate the free man. how many of those who you claim hate our guts will come knocking at our door next time they are in danger or in need? and, of course, we'll give once again when they do come knocking. we'll give our food, our belongings and our blood as we have so many times in the past. of course it will all come with a price tag. we require that they at least pay lip-service to the principles on which this country was founded. we require that, at least for today, they claim to be on the road to a free society.

then there are the developed nations that claim we are forcing ourselves on the world. what ax do you suppose they have to grind or are they just so morally superior? as they jockey for a position of economic dominance, i don't suppose they might be thinking of knocking the big dog down a couple of rungs. should our rather insane ploy in the middle east actually succeed, i'm sure they will all be more than willing to share in whatever profits might come out of the region once it is stabilized. no, i don't think they can claim any moral high ground when europe's colonization of half the world can be seen as the root cause of many of today's problems.

i can't quite comprehend the unabashed hatred that so many citizens of one of the greatest counties on earth have for their government. i can understand suspicion and defiance, but the unrivaled self-hatred it takes to hold such low opinion of those that you yourself put into power is quite beyond me.

 

[medicineman]

i can't quite comprehend the unabashed hatred that so many citizens of one of the greatest counties on earth have for their government. i can understand suspicion and defiance, but the unrivaled self-hatred it takes to hold such low opinion of those that you yourself put into power is quite beyond me.

I'll guarantee you I had no part in enabling this insane Bush Government to grasp power, I assure you I tried everything out side of physical violence to prevent those idiots from being where they are. I just wish some would have stopped them.

 

[undertheice]

It was purely retributive war.

and is that so wrong? isn't retribution an integral part of justice? i suppose we could have just turned the other cheek and waited for them to slap that one too, but we would soon have run out of cheeks and shown weakness in the process. it would be nice if everyone could just live and let live, but in case you haven't noticed that's not how things are.

Yes. So he pissed off the U.N. So what if killed his own people. Look at half the country in africa that are ran by dictators. they are just as willing to kill people but why are we not so eager to go in there?

once again i ask, "would you prefer we went to war with twenty different countries all at the same time". this is no altruistic war, there were american interests to be preserved so it might be considered justifiable to intercede.

Name one country (except switzerland) that hasn't at one point in their history tried to expand their borders through military might.

the world has changed since the days of military conquest. the globe is much too small and the weapons are much too powerful to allow any country to expand through warfare. the great empires are a thing of the past and those leaders that do not understand this are bound to find themselves facing the wrong end of the assembled might of the world's most powerful nations.

Are you saying that's ok to start a war and then justify it later?

no, i'm merely saying that that is what was done.

Saddam would not have obtained such control and maintained it with out being an intelligent man. Bush made it very clear that he thought Iraq was a "major threat" during the 2000 elections. Why would Saddam train terrorists, on his limited budget, and give Bush a legitimate reason to invade?

are you confusing a ruthless nature with an intelligent one? i don't claim to understand why anyone would do such things, i don't even claim that i know for a certain fact that such things were done. ego and the desire for power have caused worse miscalculations.

He might have had the desire to make WMD but does that mean even the desire to build things might constitute a crime worthy of invasion?

i think you might be splitting hairs here, but that's ok. is intent justification for action? i would think that depends on the nature of those involved. given iraq's recent history, which shows a willingness to use any means to gain power, you might be able to make a case for the use of force to thwart saddam's ambitions. though i hesitate to use the term mad man, would you really want this guy to have that sort of weaponry at his disposal? there are far too many sources for this sort of material these days.

 

[medicineman]

given iraq's recent history, which shows a willingness to use any means to gain power, you might be able to make a case for the use of force to thwart saddam's ambitions. though i hesitate to use the term mad man, would you really want this guy to have that sort of weaponry at his disposal? there are far too many sources for this sort of material these days.

I think you could insert Bush's name for Saddam, and the USAs name for Iraq and be pretty much right on target, and I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to call Bush a madman.

 

[undertheice]

I'll guarantee you I had no part in enabling this insane Bush Government to grasp power, I assure you I tried everything out side of physical violence to prevent those idiots from being where they are. I just wish some would have stopped them.

....but, as i am so fond of saying, it is what it is. i can understand why they might believe that all this madness is somehow their patriotic duty, but the mess we find ourselves in today borders on fanaticism. i'm just an old anarchist who opted out of the system a long time ago and analyzing all of this political mumbo-jumbo is more a matter of defining the ethics of the situation than an expression of any true political alignment. i find those on both sides of the argument to be irrational at best, but they keep me chuckling and that's better than screaming at the futility of it all.

 

[medicineman]

....but, as i am so fond of saying, it is what it is. i can understand why they might believe that all this madness is somehow their patriotic duty, but the mess we find ourselves in today borders on fanaticism. i'm just an old anarchist who opted out of the system a long time ago and analyzing all of this political mumbo-jumbo is more a matter of defining the ethics of the situation than an expression of any true political alignment. i find those on both sides of the argument to be irrational at best, but they keep me chuckling and that's better than screaming at the futility of it all.

I think you are right about that, but I still have a tiny spark of hope, it is what keeps me going, like the energizer bunny. If I could be as gullible as a devout Christian, I'd have no worries as the Rapture would end all the bullshit for me. I'm thinking if that actually happens, I'll be one of the ones left behind and will have to deal with the devil, like I haven't been dealing with that asshole for a long time now anyway. Fuck the Devil, I'll rip off his horns and shove them up his arse.

 

[undertheice]

I think you could insert Bush's name for Saddam, and the USAs name for Iraq and be pretty much right on target, and I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to call Bush a madman.

such weapons are a plague on mankind, but i think that equating saddam's iraq with a bush white house is a bit of hubris that is beneath you. at least here there are some sort of checks on their use. to give that kind of power to any man without any oversight whatsoever is a recipe for disaster of biblical proportions. all nations with such a capacity have had at least minimal oversight on their use.

 

[undertheice]

If I could be as gullible as a devout Christian, I'd have no worries as the Rapture would end all the bullshit for me.

on that count, i think my sig says it all. oh, if only i could muster up that kind of blind faith.