US-EU War

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
all the same they were seriously evil.

Is it just me, but does anyone else raise an eyebrow when people start to attribute terms such as good or evil to an ideology? I never took you for the religious sort Éomer

As for the point about Stalin, Stalinism and Communism are almost at diametric opposites. Stalinism cannot be compared with communism.

Arguably not all that opposite, as was debated before.

Éomer of Rohan

Is it just me, but does anyone else raise an eyebrow when people start to attribute terms such as good or evil to an ideology? I never took you for the religious sort Éomer

Not my day. Again, yes you are correct, there is nothing fundamentally good nor evil and what I meant when saying evil was effectively that these regimes had serious problems in terms of the social upheaval they caused, the deaths they caused and the brutalising of an entire generation of young men that they caused.

Arguably not all that opposite, as was debated before

I am guessing that you have posted the link to the political compass debate from earlier? (no I haven't looked:p )
I would argue that you cannot seperate communism from it's libertarian component without it becoming the opposite of what it sets out to be.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man, trust me, if Bush's feelings were hurt by being mentioned in the same sentence as Hitler, then the secret service is preventing him from reading any news apart from Fox to stop him from committing suicide. There are far, far worse allegations and comparisons being made out there...

(BTW, Thatcher was compared to Hitler by more than one person, if I recall correctly. Which shows that Hitler is the more widely-known example, and thus the comparison is still valid).

Oh we'll have to invent a new version of v-bulletin, with webcams, and mind reading capabilities:D
I have no problem with stating as fact that their are similarities between politicians styles and tactics.
But I do have a problem with the particular use of Hitler, he doesn't deserve it,and for most any comparison does bring hitlers most note worthy acomplishment, genocide, into ones mind.
In my view, no comparison is worth making involving Hitler on that account unless Genocide is involved.
mm

Sparks

But I do have a problem with the particular use of Hitler

Dunno why, or do you have a list of those people whom you can't make a comparison, including Stalin (who slaughtered far more people than Hitler), Pol Pot, or Mao? And what do you have to do to get on the list?

he doesn't deserve it

I presume you mean Bush
And yes, he does.

In my view, no comparison is worth making involving Hitler on that account unless Genocide is involved.

And in my view, your prejudices shouldn't be valid ground for the modification of other people's right to free speech. If Bush is that worried, let him sue for libel.

Sand

The causal use of Hitler/Nazi name calling tends to cheapen the actual true horror of what Hitler and the Nazis represented, and desensitise us to what they did. Perhaps you should be guilty of more than being a successful conservitive Republican before being considered worthy of the term. In my opinion anyway.

Originally posted by Sparks

And in my view, your prejudices shouldn't be valid ground for the modification of other people's right to free speech. If Bush is that worried, let him sue for libel.

Sparks, they are not prejudices,I object to bush being compared to Hitler, on the grounds that it creates,an association with Genocide.
Thats not an objection to free speech, it's just me disagree-ing with , that association and that is free speech.
and regarding deserving an association with genocide when you say

I presume you mean Bush ,And yes, he does.

Then you will have to tell me where Bush is committing this Genocide, that is so deserving of a comparison with Hitler.
After all my problem is with the Genocide part of the association so show me where you justify that comparison.
Or do you accept that he isn't involved in genocide?
My bone of contention here , really is the devilment in that association when there are plenty other ways of making a point like what was originally being made.
After all , most governments, Spin information and create smoke screens to cloud , a reality that would lose them votes.
Why bring any Genocidal maniac into the equasion unless, you want to make nasty smear.
mm

Sparks

Sparks, they are not prejudices,I object to bush being compared to Hitler, on the grounds that it creates,an association with Genocide.

Only in your mind, and therefore, it's your prejudice.

Then you will have to tell me where Bush is committing this Genocide, that is so deserving of a comparison with Hitler.

He's not committing genocide, he's following some of the other policies of hitler. I'm not going to sit here and educate you on those, they've been listed - go do your own research please.
Sand,

Perhaps you should be guilty of more than being a successful conservitive Republican before being considered worthy of the term.

He was guilty of more, and that's what triggered the comparison.

fisty

Originally posted by Matt Simis
However, the US is ruled by companies, multi-national companies, its not in their Economic interest to provoke hostilites (Economic or otherwise) between the US and EU. They will keep the US Government in line.
Matt

I agree, but theres still some multinationals that make money from wars...

Originally posted by Sparks
Only in your mind, and therefore, it's your prejudice.

You are ignoring , conveniently, the devilment of using a genocidal maniac as a comparison to Bush.
For me to point that out ,is not prejudice on my part.

He's not committing genocide

I'm glad that you have clarified that.

mm

The Corinthian

The question is should one make such comparisons between Bush and Hitler. There are two answers to this, one is tied to the historical man that was Adolf Hitler and the latter is to his legacy.

One of the greatest ironies of the twentieth century was that he was considered quite a competent leader up until the late 1930’s. He was racist, anti-Semitic and authoritarian, but then again, pretty much everyone else was at the time. He was however credited with having transformed Germany from a basket case economy to an economic miracle is a relatively short period of time - even his most outspoken critic, Winston Churchill, admired him:

One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.

However, Hitler also promoted a militaristic and belligerent policy that included the implementation of a nationalistic police state, using their Office of Fatherland Security or Reichssicherheitshauptamt und Schutzstaffel (but more popularly known as the SS) and a belligerent policy of aggression towards other nations - the latter of which ultimately led to the Second World War.

Thus if one makes a dispassionate comparison between Hitler and Bush, then there are parallels.

However, one cannot ignore the legacy that is Hitler, that of the Holocaust and, indeed, of the Second World War. Had he died prior to the war or even won it, our perception of him would most likely be quite different. But he didn’t and so not unlike Napoleon was in the previous century he has become demonised to such an extent that the dispassionate comparison I suggested would become impossible by the vast majority of individuals.

Thus it becomes the tool, not of reason, but of sentiment to compare anyone to Hitler, as this would be in effect a comparison to the embodiment of modern evil. So opponents of Bush will compare him to Hitler for political capital, just as Bush himself compared Saddam Hussein to the same end.

As a result, humanity probably lacks the maturity to make such comparisons.

Nonetheless, this is going off topic again - perhaps this thread has run its course.

Éomer of Rohan

If we are down to debating the finer points of a comparison with Hitler, I'd say yes this has run it's course. Ultimately we can invoke that rule of debating which points out that both Schroeder and Bush lost their arguments because they invoked the name of said Nazi.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The question is should one make such comparisons between Bush and Hitler. There are two answers to this, one is tied to the historical man that was Adolf Hitler and the latter is to his legacy.

One of the greatest ironies of the twentieth century was that he was considered quite a competent leader up until the late 1930’s. He was racist, anti-Semitic and authoritarian, but then again, pretty much everyone else was at the time. He was however credited with having transformed Germany from a basket case economy to an economic miracle is a relatively short period of time - even his most outspoken critic, Winston Churchill, admired him:"One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."

Yes but clearly that admiration was before the true horror of the holocost was known. That truth would have negated any admiration.
It's like there were many in wexford ( and I know this is just as controversial an analogy ) who would have admired the ministry of Fr Brendan Fortune, before the Awful crimes he committed became public knowledge.
Using that mans name now and his ministry in any comparison would be as vile as using Hitler.
and regarding:

Originally posted by :Éomer of Rohan
If we are down to debating the finer points of a comparison with Hitler, I'd say yes this has run it's course. Ultimately we can invoke that rule of debating which points out that both Schroeder and Bush lost their arguments because they invoked the name of said Nazi.

I would entirely agree.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Man
Yes but clearly that admiration was before the true horror of the holocost was known. That truth would have negated any admiration.

You're kind of missing and proving my point.

Once one starts using emotive language such as “true horror”, it becomes impossible to be objective or dispassionate about any such comparison. Whether or not one may compare Bush and Hitler is immaterial, as modern Society lacks the maturity to do so competently.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You're kind of missing and proving my point.

Once one starts using emotive language such as “true horror”, it becomes impossible to be objective or dispassionate about any such comparison. Whether or not one may compare Bush and Hitler is immaterial, as modern Society lacks the maturity to do so competently.

how can one not be emotive about genocide, whatever it's instigation or origin?
That doesn't take from it's seriousness or from, imho, the fact that comparing Bush and Hitler is a non starter unless, Bush is involved in Genocide which he is not.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Man
how can one not be emotive about genocide, whatever it's instigation or origin?

By using your mind.

That doesn't take from it's seriousness or from, imho, the fact that comparing Bush and Hitler is a non starter unless, Bush is involved in Genocide which he is not.

If I suggest that a man had a moustache like Hitler’s, it hardly implies an accusation of genocide. In a similar fashion, if the German justice minister compares Bush to Hitler with regard to using conflict and nationalism to divert attention from domestic difficulties, doesn’t make Bush guilty of genocide either.

Not unless you’re thinking emotively and jumping to conclusions, that is.

Which is probably why I’d personally think any such comparison is best left unmade.

Originally posted by The Corinthian

By using your mind.

People are not Vulcans you know;) mention of Hitler in comparison with Bush conjures up the association (whether, you or I like it or not) with Genocide.
It's both subtle and brilliant actually(as a slur) and for that reason,I also believe he is best left out of it.
mm

Sparks

Man,

People are not Vulcans you know

No, since Vulcans are fictional, but oddly, people invented dispassionate logic and rationalism.

mention of Hitler in comparison with Bush conjures up the association (whether, you or I like it or not) with Genocide.

It didn't for me - therefore your statement is in error if it's attempting to be a global one.

It's both subtle and brilliant actually(as a slur) and for that reason,I also believe he is best left out of it.

So far this has gone on for two pages and you have yet to show that Bush's policies do not bear similarity to those of Hitler. Thus the comparison is still valid and not a slur or libel.

Typedef

Typedef : Officially invoking Goodwin's law
http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html

Sand

So far this has gone on for two pages and you have yet to show that Bush's policies do not bear similarity to those of Hitler. Thus the comparison is still valid and not a slur or libel.

Well Bush has yet to claim that the Jews are enemies of the state, that ayrans are the master race and that all other races should be exterminated or enslaved, neither has he claimed all of eastern europe and most of russia as the aryans rightful living space, neither has he instigated and encouraged attacks and murders of Jews, nor has he argued for the extermination of the disabled because theyre genetically inferior, hes not yet built a series of death camps with the sole purpose of degrading human beings until every last measure of utility down to their very hair has been squeezed out of them before casually slaughtering them like animals.

Now personally, until Bush comes out with views similar to those - the views that Hitler and the Nazis were remarkable for even in their time of Communism and Fascism - drawing extremely broad similarities which rely on an incredibly hazy interpretation and then saying oh bush is like hitler is to my mind a bit wrong.

The scary thing is that if you were to take a poll off people of the street and ask them to name a politician of the modern era who had broadly similar polices to Hitler the vast majority would name Bush before a character like Milosevic.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

It didn't for me - therefore your statement is in error if it's attempting to be a global one.

Well if thats the case it also applies to you when you said of me:

Only in your mind, and therefore, it's your prejudice.

If you are attempting to say that I am the only one in the world that would see the association with genocide when mentioning hitler.

Vulcans are fictional, but oddly, people invented dispassionate logic and rationalism.

People are emotional beings though, thats fact, and usually don't divorce that from their reasoning too easily.

So far this has gone on for two pages and you have yet to show that Bush's policies do not bear similarity to those of Hitler. Thus the comparison is still valid and not a slur or libel.

But it is a slur, really unless you can guarantee that, the comparison can be made without an association being made with genocide.
There are plenty of other examples that could be used, to bring across, the original point without bringing hitler into it.
So why weren't the accusations made, using other examples, if not to bring a suble yet brilliant slur into the media?
I am continiously raising that issue, not whether, it is possible to (in isolation)to compare certain spins/policies used by Hitler with Bush.
I also invoke Goodwins law here.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Man
People are emotional beings though, thats fact, and usually don't divorce that from their reasoning too easily.

Agreed. Now, might I suggest you both stop arguing and just slug it out. Last man standing wins :rolleyes:

Man, you do know you’ve just argued that, for you, the emotive is a valid alternative to the rational in political debate? Welcome to the mob...

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Man, you do know you’ve just argued that, for you, the emotive is a valid alternative to the rational in political debate? Welcome to the mob...

you can welcome me into that mob, when all emotion can be removed from debate, it never will be
mm

Sparks

Well Bush has yet to claim that the Jews are enemies of the state, that ayrans are the master race and that all other races should be exterminated or enslaved, neither has he claimed all of eastern europe and most of russia as the aryans rightful living space, neither has he instigated and encouraged attacks and murders of Jews, nor has he argued for the extermination of the disabled because theyre genetically inferior, hes not yet built a series of death camps with the sole purpose of degrading human beings until every last measure of utility down to their very hair has been squeezed out of them before casually slaughtering them like animals.

No, but:
He has claimed that fundamentalist muslims are enemies of the citizens of his state, that the american way of life is the obviously superior one, that any nation who disagrees with the "war on terror" is an enemy, he's taken over afghanistan and Iraq, and is looking hard at syria, iran and a few other places, he's merrily supporting the Israelis with no regard to their actions in Gaza, and he's established the detention centre in guantanamo bay, where prisoners are tortured, beaten to death, and have their children threatened as a form of interrogation.

On the domestic side of things, there are the patriot act laws which have comprimised civil liberties extensively, there's the department of homeland security, there's the exceptional level of police violence (for the most visible example, there's the oakland protest) and there's the nearly total lack of valid opposition.

There are similarities. It was a valid comparison.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
you can welcome me into that mob, when all emotion can be removed from debate, it never will be

And yet here you are, effectively complaining because someone did not remove emotion from debate.

I'm with Corinthian. You guys are now only arguing over where the line of acceptability should be drawn.

You've both stated your case on whether or not it was acceptable, and you dont agree.

Go slug it out. Last one standing wins.

Originally posted by Sparks
No, but:
He has claimed that fundamentalist muslims are enemies of the citizens of his state,

I think you'll find he means terrorists there, which is no comparison to innocent jews being slaughtered by hitler.

there's the exceptional level of police violence (for the most visible example, there's the oakland protest)

Bush is responsible for police misbehaviour??
Does he pay them per beating, or what, come on explain that one.

that the american way of life is the obviously superior one,

Where has he claimed this and in relation to what other way of life?? If it's OBL's yes it is Superior as is mine I hasten to add.
Have you a reference where Bush claims the American way of life is better than Islam?
Because, Islam is a religion I admire in many ways and won't have it sullied with an association with Terrorism OBL style.

he's established the detention centre in guantanamo bay, where prisoners are tortured, beaten to death, and have their children threatened as a form of interrogation.

how is that a comparison to hitler?
For it to be so, every muslim in america would have to be sent there.
Lets do the maths: 2nd world war Europe, every innocent jew available in their millions were detained ( if not sucessfully hiding) and millions gassed and starved to death- percentage involved in the high 70's.
Now what percentage of the American or world wide Islamic population is detained in Guantanoma?

You see , here you are associating Bush with Genocide, ( which earlier you claimed would never enter your mind )which is where your comparison fails.
mm

Sparks

I'm not sure if responding to that would either be worthwhile, or timewasting given that the moderator has said it's offtopic...

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm not sure if responding to that would either be worthwhile, or timewasting given that the moderator has said it's offtopic...

I'm willing to leave it be:)

Originally posted by bonkey:
You guys are now only arguing over where the line of acceptability should be drawn.Go slug it out. Last one standing wins.

Bonkey-no handbags at dawn in this thread:p

mm

Sparks

Funny catalogue page.
See? Told you there were worse forms of criticism...

popinfresh

IMO, there are very noticable, and dangerous similaritys between Bush and Hitler. And between the USA and 1930's Germany for that matter. He is probably just as mentally unstable as Hitler was. The similarity is in their attitude. Bush and Hitler shared the idea that their nation is somehow superior to others. Hitler clearly showed this in mein kampf. And Bush showed this by ignorance with the crisis in the UN over Iraq. I mean, cmon ffs, how is it morally possible to be punishing France for what they did. The USAs arguments about WMDs for Iraq were a bull**** cover-up to get the oil. France's position was right. I think most intellegent people can see this. It is this attitude that we are better than you, we'll blow you up and take your oil, and even how dare you stand in the way of the USA you're going down that starts wars. People won't take it much longer, and if it really becomes necessary, if USA is just using force to get money, well then the EU will cock up some bullsh1t WMD story and attack USA. Even in all his little televised speachs you always hear him chucking in a little comment like how "it is clear that we have the finest military in the world", he almost idolises his country refering to it as "her". This attitude of Bush has already cooled relationships a lot of the us's traditional allies, and there's nothing to suggest that Bush is trying to fix this. The reason nobody sees a similarity with Bush and Hitler is because they're both from different times. If you want to invade a country nowadays you have to make up some bullsh1t story in order to do so,(ie WMDs) and you cant see it as an expansion of your own country, you just put in a puppet government. Either way you still get their oil, which was why Hitler wanted to invade Russia. Had Bush come to power in the 1930 he'd have been up invading Canada for liebensraum. The EU-US war is inevitable, although not necessarily a military war, an economic war or even one like the cold war. Although would Bush see the need to go so far as to make it clear to the EU that he has to go?? I would optimistically say probably no. So we'll be grand

bonkey

And here we go again....

Maybe you missed it, Popinfresh, but I made a reaosnable quiet suggestion that this topic be dropped a few posts ago.

If you want to discuss whether or not Hitler and Bush are similar, then go and start a thread about it. If anyone wants to reply to what you've just posted, I suggest they take it to another thread.

Maybe if you all consider the original topic vs what you want to discuss, you'll see why I made that - and this - suggestion.

jc