today's political thread
- Thread starter cmoore207
- Start date
Mike_Rupp
Well-known member
Interesting. While I think that Rumsfeld didn't fight the war very well, he is definitely not a Hitler. Did he pursue the extermination of a group of people?
We have a growing Islamic Nazi power in Iran, but I haven't heard any comments from Joy Behar. (I must admit that I haven't been watching her very closely) Admadinejad is clearly a reincarnation of Hitler. Both had/have ideals of a utopian society along racial lines. Both have designs against the Jews. The only real difference between Ahmadinejad and Hitler is that Hitler was more silent regarding his intentions.
The problem with this is that if the left acknowledges this fact, they might be compelled to deal with it. Its much easier to demonize someone like Rumsfeld.
We have a growing Islamic Nazi power in Iran, but I haven't heard any comments from Joy Behar. (I must admit that I haven't been watching her very closely) Admadinejad is clearly a reincarnation of Hitler. Both had/have ideals of a utopian society along racial lines. Both have designs against the Jews. The only real difference between Ahmadinejad and Hitler is that Hitler was more silent regarding his intentions.
The problem with this is that if the left acknowledges this fact, they might be compelled to deal with it. Its much easier to demonize someone like Rumsfeld.
cptyarderho
Well-known member
she should not speak-
ridiculous comparison.
ridiculous comparison.
Rumsfeld equated to Hitler? Yeah, it's a stupid quote. But then no more stupid than Dick Cheney's departing accolade describing Rumsfeld as "the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had." What? Did Uncle Dick forget his own tour of duty as SecDef under Bush the First?
jim-00-4.6
Well-known member
Hitler had a plan. Not one I agree with under any circumstances, but a plan nonetheless.
Rumsfeld was just a fuckwipe.
So, no, Rumsfeld does not equal Hitler.
just my opinion, yours may differ.
Rumsfeld was just a fuckwipe.
So, no, Rumsfeld does not equal Hitler.
just my opinion, yours may differ.
antichrist
Well-known member
WTF? She's a comedian, you're not suppose to take what she says seriously, she's not a politcal analyst.
Why're people getting bent out of shape when a comedian says something stupid, but love it when Anne Coulter, a supposed political analyst, says stuff just as stupid and is serious?
Why're people getting bent out of shape when a comedian says something stupid, but love it when Anne Coulter, a supposed political analyst, says stuff just as stupid and is serious?
Jake
Well-known member
antichrist said:
:nopity: because Anne Coulter is usually right..................:bigok:
The view is a joke and always has been a haven for Bush Bashers, which is their right. However, comparing an American SECDEF to Hitler is seriously retarded and shows how farked up the media left really are and how desperate they are to destroy Bush at any cost, including exposing themselves for who they truly are.
Just like Dick Cheney, I suppose, when he announced that the White House would go "full speed ahead" with its current Iraq policy regardless of the election results. "We've got the basic strategy right," Cheney said. Nothing could be further from the truth.
ummm, would that be a bunch of incompetent buffoons? The administration, that is....here are a couple oldies but goodies that proves how clueless these clowns are:
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq will be a cakewalk." - Defense policy board member Ken Aldeman, 2/13/02.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/26/02.
"We do know that (Saddam) is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon." -National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02.
"It is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days or six weeks. I doubt six months." -Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, speaking to US troops in Italy, 2/7/03.
"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." -Dick Cheney, speaking on "Meet the Press," 3/16/03.
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." -Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a message to Congress on 3/27/03.
"We know where they (the weapons) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south somewhat." -Secretary Rumsfeld, 3/30/03.
"Iraq will not require sustained aid." -OMB Director Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03. A year earlier, Daniels had dismissed initial cost estimates of $100 to $200 billion for the war, stating to the Wall Street Journal that it would be no more that $50 to $60 billion total.
"Major combat operations have ended." -President George W. Bush, 5/1/03, standing in front of the ‘mission accomplished' banner on the flight deck of the Lincoln.
"A year from now, I'd be surprised if there's not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush." -Richard Perle, chairman Defense Policy Board, in a keynote address on 9/22/03. Earlier, Pearle advocated invading Iraq with only 40,000 troops, despite Gen Eric Shinseki's pleas for 250,000 or more to stabilize the country after invasion. Who knows better? Someone who has never served a day in uniform or a four-star general?
"I would anticipate you're going to see an escalation of violence...Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, ten, twelve years." -Secretary Rumsfeld speaking to Fox News, June 20, 2005.
Unfortunately, only the last one of the above quotes has proven to be true, more tellingly it was uttered by the only member of Bush's Defense Policy Board that had any military experience.
And lets not forget one of the true architects of this continuing charlie foxtrot that is Iraq today, Douglas Feith "He was very arrogant," Feith's former deputy said, describing what it was like to work with him. "He doesn't utilize a wide variety of inputs. He seeks information that confirms what he already thinks. And he may go to jail for leaking classified information to The Weekly Standard." Classic neo-con thinking, that. This unvetted information was then "stove-piped" to the White House outside of established intelligence review channels for use in building support for the war. After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group found Iraq had no stocks of WMD, and had not produced any WMD since 1991. Army General Tommy Franks, went on to say "word is going around that Feith is the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth." High praise, indeed.
One of the few people who did get it right was Gen. Shinseki who got shuffled off to Buffalo when he opposed the administration's plans - or lack of them. Rumsfeld wouldn't even attend his retirement ceremony back in June of ‘03. Shinseki's parting quote: "Beware the 12 division strategy for a 10 division army." Truth....
ummm, would that be a bunch of incompetent buffoons? The administration, that is....here are a couple oldies but goodies that proves how clueless these clowns are:
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq will be a cakewalk." - Defense policy board member Ken Aldeman, 2/13/02.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/26/02.
"We do know that (Saddam) is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon." -National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02.
"It is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days or six weeks. I doubt six months." -Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, speaking to US troops in Italy, 2/7/03.
"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." -Dick Cheney, speaking on "Meet the Press," 3/16/03.
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." -Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a message to Congress on 3/27/03.
"We know where they (the weapons) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south somewhat." -Secretary Rumsfeld, 3/30/03.
"Iraq will not require sustained aid." -OMB Director Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03. A year earlier, Daniels had dismissed initial cost estimates of $100 to $200 billion for the war, stating to the Wall Street Journal that it would be no more that $50 to $60 billion total.
"Major combat operations have ended." -President George W. Bush, 5/1/03, standing in front of the ‘mission accomplished' banner on the flight deck of the Lincoln.
"A year from now, I'd be surprised if there's not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush." -Richard Perle, chairman Defense Policy Board, in a keynote address on 9/22/03. Earlier, Pearle advocated invading Iraq with only 40,000 troops, despite Gen Eric Shinseki's pleas for 250,000 or more to stabilize the country after invasion. Who knows better? Someone who has never served a day in uniform or a four-star general?
"I would anticipate you're going to see an escalation of violence...Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, ten, twelve years." -Secretary Rumsfeld speaking to Fox News, June 20, 2005.
Unfortunately, only the last one of the above quotes has proven to be true, more tellingly it was uttered by the only member of Bush's Defense Policy Board that had any military experience.
And lets not forget one of the true architects of this continuing charlie foxtrot that is Iraq today, Douglas Feith "He was very arrogant," Feith's former deputy said, describing what it was like to work with him. "He doesn't utilize a wide variety of inputs. He seeks information that confirms what he already thinks. And he may go to jail for leaking classified information to The Weekly Standard." Classic neo-con thinking, that. This unvetted information was then "stove-piped" to the White House outside of established intelligence review channels for use in building support for the war. After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group found Iraq had no stocks of WMD, and had not produced any WMD since 1991. Army General Tommy Franks, went on to say "word is going around that Feith is the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth." High praise, indeed.
One of the few people who did get it right was Gen. Shinseki who got shuffled off to Buffalo when he opposed the administration's plans - or lack of them. Rumsfeld wouldn't even attend his retirement ceremony back in June of ‘03. Shinseki's parting quote: "Beware the 12 division strategy for a 10 division army." Truth....
jim-00-4.6 said:
Uh... in the bad planning category: Hitler opened a two front war, did not allow for the proper defense of Normandy, used conscript troops from conquered countries on the front lines, didn't allow for the Jet Fighter as a viable offensive weapon, stopped the development of the A-bomb in Germany, took over europe for the express purpose of ruling the world and clensing the White Race, attacked Russia because he thought it would be fun to see if he could do what Napoleon could not, and if that isn't enough to get him at least a "bad planner" certificate in your estimation; he also exterminated 6 million Jews, 6+ million Christians, Pols, old people, gays, and crippled; and instead of exiting the scene to let someone else try to fix things, he locked himself in a bunker, ignored the entire situation, and killed himself and everyone else around him.
So maybe, just possibly, Hitler was also a "****wipe", while Rumsfeld -- a fellow American leading the military in a war no matter what you think of him -- is really just a bad planner.
antichrist said:
So, is that why they were interviewing George Clooney on all the morning news shows yesterday about his roll in the U.N. -- because they were not taking him seriously?
Who here says the war is going good?
.
..
...
........ insert noise of dog barking in the distance.....
............. cricket ....................................................................
Right, so are you here to support what this chick said, or are you here to argue a non-argument?
No wonder this country is falling apart. When someone makes a bad war plan we compare him to Hitler in the media, and the media is taken seriously because all their friends are from Hollywood, and all of them are taken seriously because they like the U.N. and the U.N. is in love with Hollywood. I can't believe someone on here just said that Rumsfield is worse than Hitler because Hitler was a better planner. I'm not sure if that is complete ignorance or... are you even from America?
antichrist
Well-known member
I wasn't aware George Clooney had a role at the UN. But then I don't follow hollywood folks (half of them I wouldn't know if I tripped over them on the street).
No, I don't support what she said, I don't care what she said. Maybe I'd think about what she said if it was a reasoned statement, but it wasn't, nor are most from the extreme right and left.
I don't think anyone here said Rumsfield was worse than Hitler. What he said was Hitler was a better planner. Which certainly could be argued considering the advances made (the countries overrun and pacified) before he was pushed back. Yes, insurgents were an issue in those countries, but nothing like we're seeing in Iraq. Also in the conqured countries, there was little risk of civil war.
BTW, a note on Hitler's bad planning, he actually did use the ME262 as an offensive weapon, which infuriated the Luftwaffe beacuse it wasn't designed for the role of fighter/bomber. They wanted to use it against the allied bombers, but that was made secondary to Hitler wanting it for bombing.
No, I don't support what she said, I don't care what she said. Maybe I'd think about what she said if it was a reasoned statement, but it wasn't, nor are most from the extreme right and left.
I don't think anyone here said Rumsfield was worse than Hitler. What he said was Hitler was a better planner. Which certainly could be argued considering the advances made (the countries overrun and pacified) before he was pushed back. Yes, insurgents were an issue in those countries, but nothing like we're seeing in Iraq. Also in the conqured countries, there was little risk of civil war.
BTW, a note on Hitler's bad planning, he actually did use the ME262 as an offensive weapon, which infuriated the Luftwaffe beacuse it wasn't designed for the role of fighter/bomber. They wanted to use it against the allied bombers, but that was made secondary to Hitler wanting it for bombing.
antichrist said:
Yes, I agree. But that does not mean I start throwing eggs at my own team from the stands.
anticrist said:
I said "viable offensive weapon". I should have said "defensive" though, since that is what we are comparing.
But then, lets talk about what is going on here. We are sitting here nicely discussing the intricate details of whether Hitler screwed up or not. On the other hand, when our fellow Americans screw up, instead of lending a hand, using constructive crit., or cheering them on -- like you would with your favorite sports team, or like we all do with Land Rover when they make the Freelander instead of importing the Defender or Tdi -- we have people saying:
Hitler = had a good plan. Honestly, I didn't agree with it, but we can agree to dissagree like civilized folk.
Bush et. al. = Those dirty cheating bastards -- and what's worse, Kerry didn't win! If only the Democrats would win! Let's hang-em!
But really, metaphorically speaking I would fully expect some of you guys to take your Land Rovers out into a field and burn it for all the world to see, just because you are mad about the LR3 and Freelander. This is what you are doing to America with this type of idiotic "debate and dissagreement" when it comes to Bush and the War.
antichrist
Well-known member
First of all, I don't think there's any realistic comparison of Rumsfled and Hitler, or Bush and Hitler for that matter. Idi Amin and Hitler yes.
Hitler having a good plan -- no, not a good plan, but an effective plan for 10 years or so.
The planning for Iraq wasn't ever effective, ok, for a month or two. Yes, we overran the country quickly, but look what we were up against from an organized army perspective.
Personally I don't expect things to be any better with the Democrats in power as far as Iraq goes, different, but no better. The US screwed the pooch there and it's going to be decades before it's straightened out, if not centuries.
As for your metaphor, isn't there another thread here about roasting marshmallows over burning Discos?
Hitler having a good plan -- no, not a good plan, but an effective plan for 10 years or so.
The planning for Iraq wasn't ever effective, ok, for a month or two. Yes, we overran the country quickly, but look what we were up against from an organized army perspective.
Personally I don't expect things to be any better with the Democrats in power as far as Iraq goes, different, but no better. The US screwed the pooch there and it's going to be decades before it's straightened out, if not centuries.
As for your metaphor, isn't there another thread here about roasting marshmallows over burning Discos?
Since we are having a polite discussion/debate here, I wish that someone would please explain what the plan for Iraq actually is...or was...or might possibily be. I mean, the president hasn't been able to explain it in almost four years of trying, and even after the release of the Baker/ISG report, the White House won't even bother to discuss whatever plan that might be in place until some time next year. It looks like even they are doubting their own ‘plan' whatever that might have been or are they making it up as they go along?
This entire adventure in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation. $350 plus billion, almost 3,000 dead and 22,000 plus wounded is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods. Truly, it has been the greatest story ever sold.
Sooner or later, you realize the country is being led by a man who isn't paying attention. You hope that somebody might actually nudge him to wake up, or at least put a sign on his desk that says "try much harder." In 1837, Danish author Hans Christian Andersen wrote a fairy tale titled "The Emperor's New Clothes" a story that may be the first example of the power of political correctness -and the perfect metaphor for Iraq. Mr. President, the Emperor has no clothes - or in this case - a plan. In place of actual policy we get nifty sound bites like the "Healthy Forests Initiative" or the "Clear Skies Plan"all of which are abject sell-outs to the energy industry. Wait...I'm beginning to see a trend here....
We've heard it all before. A litany of ‘reasons' - all of them proven false so far - for invading Iraq. Yes, Saddam was a very bad man and he needed to go, but he fulfilled one very valuable mission: he kept Iran in check. And Iran is much more dangerous to the stability of the Middle East - and the world - than Iraq. So is North Korea for that matter. Too bad they didn't bother to read what Churchill wrote following the demise of the Ottoman Empire - or go out and rent "Lawrence of Arabia" for that matter.
The most plausible ‘reason' given is that of "democracy" or nation building. However, in the 2000 debate with Gore, Bush said he opposed Clinton's intervention in Kosovo because "it started off as a humanitarian mission, then changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong....I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." In several stump speeches that year, Bush went on to say, "I'm worried about an opponent who uses 'nation-building' and 'the military' in the same sentence." In a speech just prior to the invasion titled "Beyond Nation Building," Rumsfeld stated that a "long term presence in a country can be unnatural" and that the US would "leave as soon as possible" if it went to war with Iraq.
Right.
But whatever war plan was to be an exercise in regime change: a supposedly swift, surgical strike after which the Iraqis would be left to somehow build their own democracy through spontaneous combustion. Europe and Japan did it after WW2, right? The US would only hang around in small numbers to protect, say, the oil ministry, the only building actually protected from looting after the fall of Baghdad.
Every single action confirms that nation-building wasn't ever in the cards - especially with Paul Bremmer put in charge. He gave major roles to twenty-somethings with no foreign policy experience or knowledge of Arabic simply because they posted resumes at the Heritage Foundation. Dismantle the Iraqi army. "De-Baathify" the civil service. Watch society crumble and the insurgency multiply. Nope, no plan at all. Any serious prewar plans for rebuilding Iraq, like the state department's "Future of Iraq" project or Gen. Anthony Zinni's "Desert Crossing" plan were ignored by the White House. And the result is chaos and outright civil war with us stuck in the middle. But Cheney insists that "we've got the basic strategy right." And of course, evil-doer number one, Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose.
This entire adventure in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation. $350 plus billion, almost 3,000 dead and 22,000 plus wounded is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods. Truly, it has been the greatest story ever sold.
Sooner or later, you realize the country is being led by a man who isn't paying attention. You hope that somebody might actually nudge him to wake up, or at least put a sign on his desk that says "try much harder." In 1837, Danish author Hans Christian Andersen wrote a fairy tale titled "The Emperor's New Clothes" a story that may be the first example of the power of political correctness -and the perfect metaphor for Iraq. Mr. President, the Emperor has no clothes - or in this case - a plan. In place of actual policy we get nifty sound bites like the "Healthy Forests Initiative" or the "Clear Skies Plan"all of which are abject sell-outs to the energy industry. Wait...I'm beginning to see a trend here....
We've heard it all before. A litany of ‘reasons' - all of them proven false so far - for invading Iraq. Yes, Saddam was a very bad man and he needed to go, but he fulfilled one very valuable mission: he kept Iran in check. And Iran is much more dangerous to the stability of the Middle East - and the world - than Iraq. So is North Korea for that matter. Too bad they didn't bother to read what Churchill wrote following the demise of the Ottoman Empire - or go out and rent "Lawrence of Arabia" for that matter.
The most plausible ‘reason' given is that of "democracy" or nation building. However, in the 2000 debate with Gore, Bush said he opposed Clinton's intervention in Kosovo because "it started off as a humanitarian mission, then changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong....I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." In several stump speeches that year, Bush went on to say, "I'm worried about an opponent who uses 'nation-building' and 'the military' in the same sentence." In a speech just prior to the invasion titled "Beyond Nation Building," Rumsfeld stated that a "long term presence in a country can be unnatural" and that the US would "leave as soon as possible" if it went to war with Iraq.
Right.
But whatever war plan was to be an exercise in regime change: a supposedly swift, surgical strike after which the Iraqis would be left to somehow build their own democracy through spontaneous combustion. Europe and Japan did it after WW2, right? The US would only hang around in small numbers to protect, say, the oil ministry, the only building actually protected from looting after the fall of Baghdad.
Every single action confirms that nation-building wasn't ever in the cards - especially with Paul Bremmer put in charge. He gave major roles to twenty-somethings with no foreign policy experience or knowledge of Arabic simply because they posted resumes at the Heritage Foundation. Dismantle the Iraqi army. "De-Baathify" the civil service. Watch society crumble and the insurgency multiply. Nope, no plan at all. Any serious prewar plans for rebuilding Iraq, like the state department's "Future of Iraq" project or Gen. Anthony Zinni's "Desert Crossing" plan were ignored by the White House. And the result is chaos and outright civil war with us stuck in the middle. But Cheney insists that "we've got the basic strategy right." And of course, evil-doer number one, Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose.
apg said:
I think you are right about everything but that statement. We are still in Europe and Japan because of WWII. In Europe we and the allies took complete control. Same in Japan. We allowed those nations to rebuild themselves in the right way, but we were in complete control. Germany hasn't even been allowed to have any meaningful military until the last few years because of WWII.
The idea that we should or should not nation build is not nearly complete enough on the surface. What you have to realize is that Iraq isn't actually a real nation anyway. It was created by the Brits as a conglomeration of three or more Arabic, Persian, and Babylonian groups -- groups of people who have traditionally hated eachother for one reason or another. And Saddam got power by conducting a coup and a round of televised murders that established his power by eliminating his possible opponents. So, to reset things like we did with Japan and Germany isn't the way to go either.
Mike_Rupp
Well-known member
Ok, you wrote 7 paragraphs about how dumb (or insert whatever adjective you prefer) Bush is, but do you have a solution? Let's say its 2008 and you are the President. What would you do?
We will have a new President in 2 years and I haven't heard anything that makes sense. If we pull out, Iraq will surely crumble and Iran will fill the vacuum. Please enlighten us. You are clearly much brighter than the President so I'd love to hear what your solution is.
We will have a new President in 2 years and I haven't heard anything that makes sense. If we pull out, Iraq will surely crumble and Iran will fill the vacuum. Please enlighten us. You are clearly much brighter than the President so I'd love to hear what your solution is.