Bush=Hitler [Archive]

Cobra

8th May 2004, 15:20

Seriously, I’ve seen that garbage before. At rallies I’ve seen protestors waving around signs that read “Bush is Hitler”, with Bush Jr. with a swastika on his head. I think that’s where Touchtone got the idea. All this does is make the Left look stupid. “Bush=Hitler” has about as much truth to it as “Bush=Stalin”. Next time you want to write political slogan, write one that at least sounds halfway intelligent. And about imperialism. As I sarcastically mentioned before, the Untied States has a long history of imperialism. It isn’t anything new.

However, Touchstone does have a point that the Patriot Act sucks. I don’t think what happened to the Raise The Fist guy would have happened before the Patriot Act (except during the McCarthy Era and around the time of WWI). The Patriot Act takes away: your right to privacy, right to speak out against the government (freedom of Speech), and in some cases your right to an attorney.

And while the Patriot Act might sound “Hitlerish”, it does not make Bush Hitler; it just makes him a jackass.

Urban Rubble

8th May 2004, 17:50

Thank you Cobra, I agree. Comparing Hitler and Bush is not only innacurrate, it's idiotic. It's also becoming the calling card of the revolutionary rookie (teenager).

Name some of the civil liberties that have been "taking away" that have affected you.

I could name plenty, do I really need to ? I think we're both aware of what the Patriot Act entails.

BOZG

8th May 2004, 18:25

It's just another example of people using "fascist" as a political swear word rather than using it in a scientific manner.

synthesis

8th May 2004, 18:29

Comparing Bush to Hitler is disrespectful to the victims of Hitler's actions.

Name some of the civil liberties that have been "taking away" that have affected you.

Time for a 180...

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. To make sure this doesn't happen again, the injustice to anyone anywhere must be the concern of everyone everywhere. "

In all nations, civil liberties are far more susceptible to the "domino theory" than Third World countries ever were.

DaCuBaN

8th May 2004, 19:22

In all nations, civil liberties are far more susceptible to the "domino theory" than Third World countries ever were

In the UK we get the 'Terrorism Act' - I'm not certain of the precise details but it certainly allows the authorities to hold you without charge for seven days - and they call this a civilised country.

elhumano

8th May 2004, 19:34

When the patriot act captures someone who was about to blow up your fucking house while Hitler type people raped your mother you wont be *****ing the civil libirties of which you've never had to use. Really you were directly affected by this act, besides the fact you cant import weed from Canada as easy? Anyones go Bush....America fights for freedom and we'll begin by blowing up the shit out of Iraq .....who's next? On another note...gas prices are really high...can communism do something about gas prices b/c if it can....i'll join the cause until then...lets blow up some shit bags who would have wanted to fuck ur mother.

Loknar

8th May 2004, 19:40

Bush is Hitler? Yeah, I see box cars drive down my street every day loaded with arabs.

Capitalist Imperial

8th May 2004, 19:55

Bush=Hitler. Wow, groundbreaking man. You are a true fucking visionary. Well thought out, very insightful, original, and may I add pinpoint accurate! :rolleyes:

The "Patriot Act" has been blown way out of proportion by overzealous leftists so many times.

As a lose contructionist, I believe that the constitiutuion should be interpreted to reflect contemporary politics and world affairs.

The patriot act is not leveraged as some sort of fucking gestapo manifesto. It is a security measure employed to put a more vigilant watch on terrorist suspects. If you can show me a legfitimate incident in which a reasonable person would concede that the patriot act has been abused and has unecessarily compromised civil liberities, I would be happy to entertain it.

synthesis

8th May 2004, 20:45

The patriot act is not leveraged as some sort of fucking gestapo manifesto. It is a security measure employed to put a more vigilant watch on terrorist suspects. If you can show me a legfitimate incident in which a reasonable person would concede that the patriot act has been abused and has unecessarily compromised civil liberities, I would be happy to entertain it.

Check some of these out.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/...se-465391.shtml (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml)

http://truthout.org/docs_03/112903F.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/...ain564189.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml)

http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickabilit...Y&partnerID=565 (http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=8164533&fb=Y&partnerID=565)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/17/...ain554383.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/17/eveningnews/main554383.shtml)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/...ain556665.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/attack/main556665.shtml)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...2&notFound=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49517-2003Sep22&notFound=true)

Capitalist Imperial

8th May 2004, 21:09

Good shot, DyerMaker.

Let me read these and I will respond.

James

8th May 2004, 23:07

In the UK we get the 'Terrorism Act' - I'm not certain of the precise details but it certainly allows the authorities to hold you without charge for seven days - and they call this a civilised country.

Oh shut up you bloody muppet!
It is because we are a civilised country that we have the terrorism Act: and not a system where people can be held for ever without charge.

They have to be released within a week if nothing can be found against them.

Personally i think that is a very small price to pay if it means something is avoided. Or would you prefer a terrorist attack?

DaCuBaN

8th May 2004, 23:12

Personally i think that is a very small price to pay if it means something is avoided. Or would you prefer a terrorist attack?

I don't like the fact that the police can hold you for more than 24hrs LET ALONE a full week.

And living in darkest scotland, then yes - I'd rather a few died rather than all are punished.

I don't really mean that, but you're riling me up here :angry:
My real beef with the terrorism act isn't it's content - it's relevant to the times. However it's at the discretion of the cabinet when the law is rescinded. That, to me, is unacceptable.

James

8th May 2004, 23:32

I don't like the fact that the police can hold you for more than 24hrs LET ALONE a full week.

I used to think this way. Especially after i got in a scuffle with some riot police.
But then i grew up - sure you can argue that the police are the soldiers of capitalism, or any other similar vauge cliche - but they do a GOOD job ALOT of the time.
When you look at iraq, or alot of other states, you realize how good our police force is.
It is a very rare occassion that the police could get away with something "big". They are reasonably accountable.

When LIFES are concerned - i personally don't think a guy being held a couple of nights is that bad.

I'd rather a few died rather than all are punished.

So you'd rather, say, a water system be poisined (killing god knows how many), than to have the terrorism act.
All punished?
Have you actually been held by the police for a week or something? Or are you talking on the basics of principles?

However it's at the discretion of the cabinet when the law is rescinded. That, to me, is unacceptable.

They are elected by the people, and accountable. I'd rather have some actual human brains dealing with a situation, at the end of the day, rather than some principle set in stone. Our current system is flexible - it can respond.

Capitalist Imperial

8th May 2004, 23:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:45 PM

The patriot act is not leveraged as some sort of fucking gestapo manifesto. It is a security measure employed to put a more vigilant watch on terrorist suspects. If you can show me a legfitimate incident in which a reasonable person would concede that the patriot act has been abused and has unecessarily compromised civil liberities, I would be happy to entertain it.

Check some of these out.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/...se-465391.shtml (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml)

http://truthout.org/docs_03/112903F.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/...ain564189.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml)

http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickabilit...Y&partnerID=565 (http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=8164533&fb=Y&partnerID=565)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/17/...ain554383.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/17/eveningnews/main554383.shtml)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/...ain556665.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/attack/main556665.shtml)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...2¬Found=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49517-2003Sep22¬Found=true)
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/...se-465391.shtml (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml)

two examples here: one in which a bomb was involved, seems legit to me, the other a meth-lab, which may not be intended as a bomb, but is very dangerous and combustable. maybe this was a stretch, but I have little sympathy for meth producers. the ends justify the means in this situation

http://truthout.org/docs_03/112903F.shtml

I condede, this is abhorrent. How dare they compromise a strip club. This is wrong, brother, just wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/...ain564189.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml)

according to this, any alleged violations will be fully investigated.

http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickabilit...Y&partnerID=565 (http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=8164533&fb=Y&partnerID=565)

see above

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/17/...ain554383.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/17/eveningnews/main554383.shtml)

this article does not allege any abuse, it only talks hypotheticals. The whole "Government checking up on what you are reading, its like 1984, dude!!!" has not materialized at all as far as I know

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/...ain556665.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/attack/main556665.shtml)

merely allegations. the justice dept is well within their rights with respect to the treatment of these dissident terrorist detainee pukes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...2¬Found=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49517-2003Sep22¬Found=true)

this seems to be a legitimate interpretation and execution of of the patriot act

Thank you for the info DyerMaker. My overall analysis is that out of these submissions, we received 4 concrete examples. As for the dude with the pipe-bomb, that is in full compliance with the patriot act's provisions. The 2 palestinians were also subject to the patriot act due to their material support for a terrorist organization.

I won't defend anyone who tries to take down a strip club, but between that the the evil meth--lab bastards, I think crying fowl over these two incidents with regard to the patriot act is pretty ticky-tack.

synthesis

8th May 2004, 23:52

But wasn't the Patriot Act intended to stop terrorist activity? I'm befuddled as to how a meth lab has anything to do with stopping extremists from flying planes into buildings.

My personal view of the matter is that Bush instituted the most authoritarian measures he thought he could get away with. He couldn't do what Hitler did during his seizure of dictatorial powers because Hitler was at the helm of a crumbling, polarized society knee-deep in poverty without much of a history in liberalism. America is a "strong" society rooted in ideals of freedom of speech and information. Obviously this is conjecture, but I do feel that if Bush had had the opportunity, the Patriot Act would have been much more comprehensive in its liberalization of the powers of the government.

Monty Cantsin

9th May 2004, 00:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:29 PM

Time for a 180...

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. To make sure this doesn't happen again, the injustice to anyone anywhere must be the concern of everyone everywhere. "

who said this its really good.

Capitalist Imperial

9th May 2004, 00:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:52 PM
But wasn't the Patriot Act intended to stop terrorist activity? I'm befuddled as to how a meth lab has anything to do with stopping extremists from flying planes into buildings.

My personal view of the matter is that Bush instituted the most authoritarian measures he thought he could get away with. He couldn't do what Hitler did during his seizure of dictatorial powers because Hitler was at the helm of a crumbling, polarized society knee-deep in poverty without much of a history in liberalism. America is a "strong" society rooted in ideals of freedom of speech and information. Obviously this is conjecture, but I do feel that if Bush had had the opportunity, the Patriot Act would have been much more comprehensive in its liberalization of the powers of the government.
I think history will show the Patriot Act falling by the wayside for all intents and purposes, perhaps after the whole "terrorist threat" is no longer the preemminent focus of the US defense and foreign policy, and we've moved onto another "major enemy".

You know, it was much more simple when we were fighting the commies. ;)

Loknar

9th May 2004, 00:44

Lincoln was the most authoritative president in history, not bush.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 01:02

so what you're saying is that bush != hitler = lincoln ?

Loknar

9th May 2004, 01:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:02 AM
so what you're saying is that bush != hitler = lincoln ?
No, I think anyone who makes such comparisons are stupid asses, who don’t have an idea of what happened in the 1930's.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 01:42

hence why I asked for clarification if YOU were making that point... I didn't understand why you posted that, or what relevance it actually had so I tried to apply logic to it to see if there could be a link anywhere.

Apparently not :rolleyes:

NB: It was a question

Touchstone

9th May 2004, 06:52

I still havn't been proven wrong. Some of the Civil Liberties? Ummm.......for posting on this site, I could be detained a questioned for "terroristic activity". Granted, The solgan has become common, but it's not literal. Granted, I mis-said the whole jazz about imperialism, but it's true.

Professor Moneybags

9th May 2004, 09:42

took away most of my Civil Liberties. Yours too.

He lies. Decieves to get what he needs/wants.

You mean he's just like you lot ?

Touchstone

9th May 2004, 09:45

No. We fight for civil liberties. He lied to get to his way and his power.

Raisa

9th May 2004, 18:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:34 PM
When the patriot act captures someone who was about to blow up your fucking house while Hitler type people raped your mother you wont be *****ing the civil libirties of which you've never had to use. Really you were directly affected by this act, besides the fact you cant import weed from Canada as easy? Anyones go Bush....America fights for freedom and we'll begin by blowing up the shit out of Iraq .....who's next? On another note...gas prices are really high...can communism do something about gas prices b/c if it can....i'll join the cause until then...lets blow up some shit bags who would have wanted to fuck ur mother.
Is this your hysterical propaganda tacitc?
Stop talking about my mother.

synthesis

9th May 2004, 19:00

who said this its really good.

Pastor Niemoller made that statement in his 1945 Declaration of Guilt.

I think history will show the Patriot Act falling by the wayside for all intents and purposes, perhaps after the whole "terrorist threat" is no longer the preemminent focus of the US defense and foreign policy, and we've moved onto another "major enemy".

I'm not so sure I agree with that. I certainly hope it will wither away after losing its justification.

I hate to engage in the "slippery slope", but history leads me to believe that governments suppressing dissent (or at least instituting the means to do so) with popular success don't just stop at where they are justified.

However, you may very well be correct. The Patriot Act is far milder, both in its stated terms and the length to which it is abused, than other measures taken by the American government in which it grants itself the means to suppress dissent. We aren't seeing anything like the turn of the century and thereabouts, where labor leaders and anti-war protestors were prosecuted, openly, for dissenting with capital and the state. Hopefully, this will be a continuing trend.

You know, it was much more simple when we were fighting the commies.

It's pretty "simple" now, too. When it was the Communists that were targeted, any unrelated action taken to subvert a hostile government was justified because they had some relationship, often concocted, to the Communists.

(See, for example, Iraq in 1963, where the Communist party was not even fully legal, yet the C.I.A. claimed that they were close to a total takeover in order to prevent Kassem from posing a threat to Western oil interests through OPEC. Brazil, Greece, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, among others, were given similar treatment.)

Terrorism has replaced Communism as the political stigma-inducer of the day. In that regard, things are still quite simple.

DSCH

9th May 2004, 20:09

Why do you guys care if Bush = Hitler? According to the multicultural view, morality is subjective and relative. Therefore we must be inclusive, diverse, and tolerant of Socialists -- especially Muslims.

There Is No God; Morality Is Subjective; It's all Relative

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/c/c4/Hitlermusso.jpg

Take the Power back

9th May 2004, 23:08

At least the people actually elected Hitler.

NYC4Ever

10th May 2004, 00:10

lol, Bush is Hitler? No, Hitler was Hitler. Stalin was Hitler. Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden are Hitler. Mao was Hitler. Castro is Hitler. Pol Pot was certainly Hitler.

Bush is Bush. The near best damn Prez since Reagen. You guys are seriously blowing up the Patriot Act way too much. The only known case I would say that was in the least bit extreme was in the case of Sherman Austin, but he should've been more responsible for his links on his Anarchist website during a time of war. I hate kids like him that say shit about our country to the point of wanting to literally take it down, and then hide behind our own laws to justify treason. I wanna see you guys pull these same stunts in China and or Cuba. Trust me there is no police state, you guys get away with alot more than you think. Just visit a college campus, pick up a Noam Chomsky book, and enjoy your stay at Treason U. If anything you guys are getting off easy.

Loknar

10th May 2004, 00:11

Originally posted by Take the Power [email protected] 9 2004, 11:08 PM
At least the people actually elected Hitler.
no they didn’t

He was appointed Chancellor (head of government) of Germany by Hindenburg (Head of state). He then burnt down the Reichstag and blamed it on communists, the German Congress merged the offices of Chancellor and president together and placed it all in Hitler’s hands.

DaCuBaN

10th May 2004, 00:23

They elected him into parliament, giving him the chance to do these things.

It's not direct, but the democratic system involved isn't either, so I'd say it works out. Neither assertation is false though.

NYC4Ever

10th May 2004, 00:23

Loknar,
Remember you're arguing with a hardcore leftist. His history is an alternate universe compared to yours. You should note that American opperatives helped with the burning and supported Hitler throughout the war. Oh, and America helped sell gas for the gas chambers and even sent Hitler the swastika as a gift to help him create a symbol for his new regime. Oh and we weren't really fighting him too we were just sending troops over to help him fight the Russians. :rolleyes:
Other than that, the Soviet Union was the real hero of WWII and Stalin killed only those that were a danger to the Union.

DaCuBaN

10th May 2004, 00:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:23 AM
Loknar,
Remember you're arguing with a hardcore leftist. His history is an alternate universe compared to yours. You should note that American opperatives helped with the burning and supported Hitler throughout the war. Oh, and America helped sell gas for the gas chambers and even sent Hitler the swastika as a gift to help him create a symbol for his new regime. Oh and we weren't really fighting him too we were just sending troops over to help him fight the Russians. :rolleyes:
Other than that, the Soviet Union was the real hero of WWII and Stalin killed only those that were a danger to the Union.
I think perhaps we all live in an alternate universe to yourself...

Extremists both sides refuse to look at the opposing arguments, which really pisses me off to be honest. Whoever asserted Bush=Hitler was deeply misguided, as the circumstances bear little resemblance - the only evidence that is supporting of this idea is that he is going to war under false pretences. He's not exactly the first world leader to do that though is he ;) :D

The only comment from this quote that even deserves a response would be that of the Soviet Union. As far as liberating the world from the Axis, they did do a lot - certainly as much as the US. You have to put these stupid, petty differences aside and look at the facts. Many people assert that the US was selling all sorts to the axis during WWII - and they were. They neglect to mention that they also did a lot to help the allies during this time, so this balances out. It's still inexcusable for a 'freedom loving nation' to sit out until it comes to them though.

There's enough threads in this board of people ripping into each other over menial things, so let's abandon this one, huh?

elhumano

10th May 2004, 00:45

DaCuban and Raisa should go to Cuba. As a matter a fact, i think it would be best for national security to let Bush fuck your mother. Hows that for patriotism. Lets try a new equation. Communism = pussy=fag= should be fucked by Bush Now im no mathmatician but i think thats the best equation since E=mc^2 - at least this one makes more sense. Einstien would also agree, but his would go Communism=really gay ass pussy= homoqueers = Bush is going to fuck ur mother.

John Galt

10th May 2004, 02:03

You sir, are retarded.

I am ashamed to have you in my member group.

DaCuBaN

10th May 2004, 02:08

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 02:03 AM
You sir, are retarded.

I am ashamed to have you in my member group.
:lol:
I didn't want to say it, you can't when you oppose someone ideologically. Thanks ;)

Osman Ghazi

10th May 2004, 02:11

lol, Bush is Hitler? No, Hitler was Hitler. Stalin was Hitler. Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden are Hitler. Mao was Hitler. Castro is Hitler. Pol Pot was certainly Hitler.

You know, come to think of it, Bin Laden's moustache does look kind of familiar. I knew there was something I wasn't getting. Okay, Hitler was Hitler. Stalin was Dzugashvili. The others were who they say they were. Unless you've suddenly started believing in reincarnation, (which I doubt a reactionary like NYC4EVER has ever even considered), they were not all one person.

Were they similar to Hitler? Sure, in some respects. Is Bush similar to Hitler? Sure, a little, but not that much. Touchstone is just a douchebag who makes blanket generalizations with no evidence. He isn't a communist. He is an uninformed liberal retard who just spouts out so many cliched attacks.

And the Soviet Union WAS the real hero of WWII. They took 20 million casualties, took on 90% of the Third Reich's forces and beat back the best army in the world. Did they have help? Yes. In fact, it was the air superiority that they gained from the Lend-Lease program that allowed them to gain the advantage and push back the Germans all the way to Berlin. But they were still the major player of the war and they still sacrificed the most to achieve peace for the world.

Intifada

10th May 2004, 14:58

people, i have some important news.....

....NYC4Ever is from protestwarrior. just ignore his ignorant neo-conservative ramblings.

Loknar

10th May 2004, 15:37

Some of you need to read a history book. Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by Hindenburg to head the German government.

M_Rawlins

10th May 2004, 15:56

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm)

NYC4Ever

10th May 2004, 16:13

Ah so you've discovered my connections with Protest Warrior. Gee, I wonder how long it took you guys to figure that out? So this is the unbias opposing ideologies forum, huh. Ignorant neo-conservative ramblings, eh? So I suppose your left-wing communist ramblings are the real deal?
I have been seeing the growing trend that's been adapting in college classrooms everywhere. The thought of the Soviet Union being the one and only real hero. I had no idea that it had taken into effect so soon, but I wouldn't have expected any less from college campuses. I don't doubt that the USSR did help to achieve alot, but to call them the ultimate champions and undermine the US work is now also catching mainstream college history classes. US WWII posters are now percieved and are labled under American Propaganda. Old Warner and Disney cartoons that represented Americans in a favorable light can be downloaded as American Propaganda cartoons. Has the venom of anti-Americanism reached to this haunting premise?
The only argument that you guys have against Patriots like me and others in here, is thate we dont read the "right" news or the "right" books. You turn around and call us unbias when you guys sit around and listen to NPR and Pacifica radio to catch a piece of the most bias reporters on the known world. History isnt History til you read it under Howard Zinn, and you dont know politics til you read Noam Chomsky once or twice and watch him speak at several bias Univeristies.

Osman Ghazi

10th May 2004, 19:04

I have been seeing the growing trend that's been adapting in college classrooms everywhere. The thought of the Soviet Union being the one and only real hero. I had no idea that it had taken into effect so soon, but I wouldn't have expected any less from college campuses.

Yes, an education will tend to do that to you. Obviously you haven't been scourged by that evil.

And Loknar, he was democratically elected. You see, the type of government they had, which was the same as the Third Republic in France, was that the President, or in Germany the Chancellor, appointed the head of the party with the most seats to power. Though, sometimes, due to their bias, the Executive branch wouldn't appoint the party with the most seats, but would instead appoint a party that could make a stable ministry. However, at any time, if the other partys don't like it, they can call for a vote of no-confidence in the current ministry, and the government must have new elections. It is an excellent system so long as there are many parties and no party gets a majority governement.

NYC4Ever

10th May 2004, 19:10

Yes, an education will tend to do that to you. Obviously you haven't been scourged by that evil.

Yes, a horribly leftist education brought to you by eager beaver Marxist teachers. I dont mind progressive ideas, but when it undermines truth in which the US did have a participating role that brought about many positive results from our actions in WWII. I never doubted that the USSR never helped, but to praise them beyond as being the sole hero. No,No my friend. Now thats pushing it. The colleges of America are no longer liberal, they are now leftist.

Osman Ghazi

10th May 2004, 19:23

Red Skyscraper

11th May 2004, 17:36

America defeated Japan and they did almost half of the work necessary to do that. However, it was still a secondary theater. The British beat back the Italians and Afrika Korps from Libya. The Americans took about half the effort of taking Italy with Britain and Canada sharing the other half. On D-day, the Americans took 2 beaches, the british 2 beaches and the Canadians one beach. So again, they were less than half the effort required to beat them. Besides which, Italy and France were secondary theatres of combat. The Russians would have won D-day or no.

Let me add to this. When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, they caught Stalin off guard. He tried to strike back, but since some of his best military leaders had been purged from the system, the Russians made some mistakes and lots of men were lost in WWII, like in WWI. However, when the Russian winter came, this gave the Soviets an opportunity to take the advantage as they were better prepared for the cold weather than the Wehrmacht, and also better military leaders were employed. They wiped out most of the Wehrmacht, to the point that Germany was about to lose. The next nail to the coffin came with D-Day, and then the American and British bombings of German industry, weakening the Reich where Germans now fought to the death with the Russians by 1945.

Yes, a horribly leftist education brought to you by eager beaver Marxist teachers. I dont mind progressive ideas, but when it undermines truth in which the US did have a participating role that brought about many positive results from our actions in WWII. I never doubted that the USSR never helped, but to praise them beyond as being the sole hero. No,No my friend. Now thats pushing it. The colleges of America are no longer liberal, they are now leftist.

The Russians were not the sole heroes of the war, but like I said, without their brutal force and the winter the war would have lasted much longer even after the Allied bombings as the Germans would have been revived in their patriotism and determined to fight to the end, even if the regime they supported was fucked up.

Funny how you say "leftist education brought to you by eager beaver Marxist teachers." The last time I checked, all the teachers I have in college were anything but Marxist. Rather, they bash the hell out of Karl Marx and Cuba and everything to do with socialism, and they laugh at the idea of the rising proletariat. Heh, some of them seem more right-wing. I had a professor who had communicated with Colin Powell, and having a conversation with him about terrorists, he said "We'll get them all eventually," sounding like some kind of big right-winger. His lectures bashed Islamic fundamentalism, but he never explained why so many Muslims would join this cause in the first place, or that the US had meddled in so many foreign affairs it wasn't funny.

I have a history teacher who was a complete bullshit artist, as everything he said was either sketchy or completely off the mark in terms of truth. My political science teacher was the same, promoting American government but never pointing out the big flaws. In college they don't give you a sugar-coated version of history like they do in high school, but it still isn't the greatest education either.

Anyone who likes to label college education as "leftist" in a nasty way apparently doesn't understand the benefits of a higher education but rather fears people who might be more intelligent than himself.

NYC4Ever

11th May 2004, 17:58

So do you support a bias, in depth report of american History like that of Howard Zinn, with favorable critique by none other than Noam Chomsky. Oh yes, this is really being critical to the point of truth. ;)
Look, I dont doubt that our government doesnt get involved in heavy shit. But I remember a time when we saw these at an individual perspective. Now all people want to think is how was or is this all connected. It's all collectivist thinking. Now to be in the zone you have to be face pressed in leftist material. C'mon would you object to even the likes of elder lefties like the ones I mentioned above if you came into different sources? Not many would considering the vast amounts of zombies paying homage to the underground revolution conspiring at your local college campus. During my times at communiy college (for God's sake CC!) I had two general semi-socialist teachers, History 101 and 102. I wouldn't call them leftists but surely liberal. IF theres anything I cannot stand is the wild war cry of lefties that point to people who support America as conformist sheep, when they pride themselves with being part of an "exclusive" movement thats very popular among liberal arts majors.

Capitalist Imperial

11th May 2004, 19:31

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 10 2004, 07:23 PM
America defeated Japan and they did almost half of the work necessary to do that. However, it was still a secondary theater. The British beat back the Italians and Afrika Korps from Libya. The Americans took about half the effort of taking Italy with Britain and Canada sharing the other half. On D-day, the Americans took 2 beaches, the british 2 beaches and the Canadians one beach. So again, they were less than half the effort required to beat them. Besides which, Italy and France were secondary theatres of combat. The Russians would have won D-day or no.
Try about 90% of the work.

The Pacific was no "Secondary Theater". Japan had a huge military, a sophisticated Navy with the world's largest battleships (they had alredy defeated the russians on the water in the Russo-Japaneze war), and a good airforce. They eventually would have flanked the Russians from the east had the US not taken them on. The Pacific theater of WWII is the single largest display of Naval and air warfare that the world has ever seen in one campaign.

Thanks, USSR, for you help in the pacific while we helped you in Europe...

Oh, wait, that is right, the Russians didn't do crap in the pacific. We had a little help from China and Australia, but it was pretty much supplemental. It was cetainly no truly "allied effort" as in Europe.

The United States is the only nation to fully committ to 2 theaters, one of those pretty much by itself. Denial of Ameircas significant contribution to WWII is nothing more than venhement anti-americanism manifesting itself in a very pathetic and dishonorable way.

By the way, let's ask survivors of former Nazi-Occupied Europe whether the western European campaign was important or not.

DaCuBaN

11th May 2004, 19:42

The Pacific theater of WWII is the single largest display of Naval and air warfare that the world has ever seen in one campaign

Agreed

Oh, wait, that is right, the Russians didn't do crap in the pacific. We had a little help from China and Australia, but it was pretty much supplemental. It was cetainly no truly "allied effort" as in Europe.

The russians did very little on the pacific front, but the brits were out there too - again though, this was simply america defending her 'border' - it's not our fault your border happened to be the biggest ocean on the planet ;)

Thanks, USSR, for you help in the pacific while we helped you in Europe...

The USSR and USA shed no tears for each other. That aside, I cannot recall any instance of US soldiers fighting on the Eastern European front.... links?

Denial of Ameircas significant contribution to WWII is nothing more than venhement anti-americanism manifesting itself in a very pathetic and dishonorable way.

Over glorification of the efforts of the US is a common habit amongst 'patriots' - and this is not unique to the US: Brits, Russians, you name it, the patriots amongst them think they can do no wrong, and ne'er have.

As this is true someone who opposes your opinion is going to take this view - it's called bias - something you too are guilty of.

Osman Ghazi

11th May 2004, 20:08

The Japanese Navy was not quite as sophisticated as you protrayed. The reason they crushed the Russina Navy was because they caught them off-guard in Port Arthur and destroyed them easily. You might as well say that the Battle of Copenhagen or the Battle of the Nile were difficult battles. That is to say, it is easy to win when the enemy can't maneouvre his ships.

Their airforce was so-so. It was mostly just Torpedo bombers and Zeros (which admittedly were probably the best planes in the theatre.) It was a Naval Air Force, designed to sink ships rather than tactical or strategic bombers intended to destroy land-based divisions or inrastructure. In this respect, their victory at sea was a major accomplishment. The American Navy was a bit better equipped but mostly they simply outmanned the Japanese.

While I'll admit also that the battle for the Pacific Islands was indeed a heoic one, it pales in comparison to the scale of the Eastern Front. Also, you have to take into account that a significant portion of Japan's manpower and infrastrucure were devoted to the occupation of China. The Chinese fought all alone until 1940 and even then all their allies were destroyed. They had some material support and they had some allied untis helping them fight, but until the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria in August 1945, they had no one helping them out on the mainland. The fact that they weren't conquered and suffered 13 million casualties total compared to the American's 295,000 for both theatres shows that they shouldered most of the effort. Would they have won without the Americans? Probably not. But as the Americans ended the war by killing 200,000 civilians, it doesn't particularly surprise me that they would surrender.

Thanks, USSR, for you help in the pacific while we helped you in Europe...

Oh, wait, that is right, the Russians didn't do crap in the pacific. We had a little help from China and Australia, but it was pretty much supplemental. It was cetainly no truly "allied effort" as in Europe.

It was all 'supplemental'. All the Americans took were tiny islands that, although important strategically, really didn't hurt Japan that much. Also, you have to take into consideration that the Americans, while fighting definately the bulk of Japanese forces, had them significantly outmanned and out-gunned.

The United States is the only nation to fully committ to 2 theaters, one of those pretty much by itself

What about Britain? Hell, what about Canada? We had Juno beach on D-day and our troops fought in the defense of Hong Kong.

But really, why do I even bother explaining this to you? After all, you are the man who formulated the brilliant theory on how the Soviet Union fought a defensive war from the Stalingrad to Berlin.