Its insane to compare hitler with saddam... last time I checked saddam didn't kill 6 MILLION PEOPLE!

The death toll isn’t as high, but the brutality and methods are similar. Saddams death toll was higher than Milosevic’s but the left were comfortable labeling “the butcher of the Balkans” Hitler. And Clinton held a press conference in which he actually called Milosevic “Hitler.” It’s just intellectual dishonesty to deny the magnitude of the atrocity in Iraq, have you see n the pictures or the films?

In africa there are 11.000 children starving every day. Every day there die 11000 children because of hunger!!

Yes and the UN should be taking the lead role in stopping this tragedy. In a perfect world Kofi Anon and the corrupt disgraceful UN (who sat and watched genocide time and time again) would take the lead role in demanding that all the nations of the world contribute to the suffering in Africa. But just as they watched the slaughter of millions under their watchful eye in the past, they still have no invested interest in saving Africans. Don’t blame Bush, blame Kofi anon and his oil for Auschwitz programs.

Anthony, I am aware of the things saddam did however this war wasn't about saddam in the first place. This war was because saddam 'could attack with chemical weapons within 30 minutes'... yeah, right, was it just me or did the whole world miss something there?

/me wonders how long it will take until someone starts to defend bush with "just because he talks slow dasn't mean he is stupid"

This war was because saddam 'could attack with chemical weapons within 30 minutes'

Styl: what am I going to do with you

If the curly haired intelligentsia lining coffee houses and internet cafes in Europe and Michael Moore didn’t think Hussein posed a chemical weapons threat, then that is ok with me and most Americans. I was for the removal of Hussein in 91, when he invaded Kuwait much in the way Hitler invaded Poland. All of this “no WMD” would be irrelevant then wouldn’t it? Saddam ended the march on Baghdad in 91 when he agreed to allow free and unfettered access for weapons inspectors, and when he expelled them in 98, it was grounds for an immediate resumption of hostility. And the intellectual elites of Europe complaining about "no WMD" are the ancestors of those who just sat around as a whole continent blackened with Nazism and fascism.
[Message Edited]

Even Clinton can be quoted as stating that Saddam has/had WMD's. With their underground background, there can be things buried in Iraq that won't be unearthed until the Second Coming.

And the intellectual elites of Europe complaining about "no WMD" are the ancestors of those who just sat around as a whole continent blackened with Nazism and fascism.

I hope you do not mean me by that... if so I am getting a little bit of pissed off.

What happend in WO II was the elimination of 6 million people, it can not be compared to saddam.
Hitler got his power by a 'legal way'. It was the people of germany who you can blaim this on.
Instead of saying that we were just sitting around, you can better tell the truth.

Please help me remember:

Who was it that allowed germany to invade "the reinlanden" witch was a de-militarised zone after WO I?
- answer: England and the US

Who made the 'versaille' rules that caused anger in whole germany?
- answer: England and the US

Who did nothing when germany invaded tjechie?
- answere: England and the US (and france...)


All the time they were the one saying "yeah, but if you do anything more we will declare war... they only did that when hitler invaded poland, and even then, they didn't do ****.

And what are you talking about nazism and fascism?

That isn't why the war was started in the first place. That are hitlers ideas but the people of germany felt like they were blaimed for WO I in a way that wasn't acceptable. The whole versaille thing is what caused WO II.
I don't know if you know your history but this is what happend:

Germany had to pay all the damage done in WO I.
They got money from the states but when the economie of the US crashed in 1929-1930 the US wanted their money back.
This caused that a lot of germans lost their job, home, car, etc.
Then hitler came on stage, he told every one he could make germany better, bigger etc. That isn't too hard to believe if you want to believe it...

As I said, the contract of versaille is what caused WO II, not the people who just sat arround.


For the WMD, the inspectors were already back in Iraq when bush declared war.

Bush couldn't lose his face by getting his troops back.
I am tired of the people defending bush and the war. His dad should have finished the job when he was there but he didn't! there is no single reason in the universe why bush junior had the right to invade Iraq.

This is what, why don't we run a poll on wc:

What do you think about the war in Iraq:

- I live in america and I believe its a good thing,
- I do not live in america and I believe its a good thing
- I live in america and believe its a bad thing
- I do not live in america and I believe its a bad thing
- What war in iraq?

But a simple question:

Did they find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Here's an interesting question:

Why did daddy Bush(then VP) and the other shady people in the
Reagan administration(Rumsfeld etc.) allow the selling of the
chemical crap to Iraq's army back then if they didn't want
them use it??

I don’t wish to be offensive styl, if I was I apologize.

From What I understand about Versailles, the big four came to that conclusion that Germany was responsible for WWI and Germany signed off on it. They agreed to accept “war guilt” for the entire war and agreed to pay compensation. The Germans lost the war big time, and they were in no position to bargain. The big four was really the big two. Italy and the US really didn’t do much. Woodrow Wilson was not a major player the whole thing was for the most part, arranged by Britain and France, who both collectively beat the heck out of Germany, especially after the British developed an armored vehicle.

The British tank was the breakthrough in the bloody stalemate of trench warfare it plowed through the German ranks crushing everything in its wake. And even though the Germans were successful on their eastern front, they lost it all on the Western front. After Bismarck’s three Prussian wars, and after the Kaiser issued a blank check giving authority to Austria to attack Serbia, the major European powers were fed up. They blamed German militarism for the bloody conflicts. The Kaiser made a mistake in that he didn’t predict Russia coming to protect their Slavic brothers. An avalanche of wider war followed the Austrian attack on Serbia, in which Germany would later take the blame.

What emerged from WWI was a lot of young future generals with a lot of war experience, which would later set the stage for the creation of a fearsome military, the Wehrmacht (armed forces). That model of German militarism set the standard for every nation’s army to this very day.

I had many reasons why I approved of the Iraq war, not just WMD. And stocks of weapons may still exist, Zarqawi and Batthist Generals still exist, why not WMD? The one Sarin shell they did find was capable of killing hundreds of people, there is probably more of it. Saddam has funded enemies of America and Israel.

An unlikely ally to President Bush has just bolstered the evidence on the threat Saddam posed. Russian president Vladimir Putin said that Russia knew Saddam Hussein had planned terror attacks on U.S. soil and had warned Washington. Putin said Russian intelligence had been told on several occasions that “Saddam's Special Forces were preparing to attack U.S. targets inside and outside the United States.” The only open ended question is this, who exactly was Saddams “special forces.”

no, star, i attack the arguement as assanine not you personally. i bailed on it so i wouldn't have to hate you later

i bailed on it so i wouldn't have to hate you later

Ahh, hehe, how thoughtful of you =D

i attack the arguement as assanine not you personally

Well, if you had bothered to check the facts you would see that
everything is quite true, even if it makes you mad at me for telling
about it.

Also, since people started to bring up similarities with
WWII Germany and now, this article about the aniversary
shows that the similarities are even greater.

Sometimes it seems that history repeats itself.

When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Democracy_America/WhenDemocracyFailed.html

#50 by Anthony R. - 6/26/2004 10:17:00 AM Web gizmos: You should take more interest in your civic duty as an American citizen to understand the differences (and they are monumental differences) between the two party’s and vote.

My civic duty? I take part in my "civic duty" more than most people you know, just not in the capacity that you consider civic. As far as I am concerned the differences you speak of between the parties is a joke, it's smoke and mirrors, the line dividing them is so thin it doesn't exist. You can go on and on all you want about how different they are, I don't buy it.

Showing interest in one of our greatest presidents is a good start, but I have to inform you that the quote you refer to wasn’t Lincolns.

What was more important was the message. But thanks for pointing that out.

Well, if you had bothered to check the facts you would see thateverything is quite true

well, let me clarify.. i can't dispute posted articles from factual sources.. my problem with them as evidence is that they are isolated incidents, with the narrowmindedness of a few. like i said before, their way of thinking was not consistent with the rest of the government or even the american people.. and thankfully, such plans have not gone into motion. not that i am saying i trust certain people in control right now, that they would never conspire to conceal the truth or do things secretly- i believe they've definitly had their own wicked way with planning, and certain information. but this does not mean the entire government is defacto.. this is why we have so many layers of government.. the house of representatives, the senate (each of which are broken down into several governing commitees), then the joint cheifs and finally the president. mixed around in there you have the FBI, CIA, and private companies. a plan like the one to spur war with cuba couldn't make it through that gauntlet of review.. therefore if it was carried out in secret, you can't say it was done with consent of the american people.. and when the media would find out about it, well there would be hell to pay. the fact that it is posted publically for you to access online shows the sincerity they TRY to uphold. they could have very easily just hidden the information so people would never know about it in this historical sense.

The left tend to over emphasize the need to back up their claims with “proof.” No one asked for it, yet they leave a pre-emptive minefield of links to “back up their claims.” Unfortunately, most of the links they leave are just unreliable opinion sources from fringe web sites, and the legitimate sources they use are the most left leaning biased ones available.

I cant count how many major corrections the New York Times had to make this year, because they weren’t reporting the news, they were creating the news, but a lot of that misinformation is still out there and difficult to retract.

The worst kind of post is one where someone’s entire opinion piece is posted and the poster issues a “challenge,” daring any one to repudiate the article point by point. They demand that you debate the author of those articles instead of writing one themselves. Who wants to spend their day repudiating every kooky article on the internet?

http://www.rock103.com/bin.html

This is cool

Even Clinton can be quoted as stating that Saddam has/had WMD's. With their underground background, there can be things buried in Iraq that won't be unearthed until the Second Coming.

They were all convinced that Saddam had WMD
http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

Difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is, Clinton left the White House after 8 years as President

I personally think this beheading thing or shall I say for a lack of a better word, 'fad', will end mostly because these fanatics scream religion yet even the most extreme of them does not allow this tye of desicretion.

I have to ask Frogboy to post something... unless he posted it already on JoeUser...

Well it kind of plays into two different areas.

1. Religious Zealots claiming they do what they do for God and his chosen People.

2. beHeading *is* the main manner in which they perform death penalty in that region.

We in the USA use Gas, Lethal Injection, Firing Squad, Electric Chair and Hanging. Though many places are leaning over to Gas or Lethal Inject because it is more humane which is a sick joke if you ask me. Dead is dead and the means in which you get dead really doesn't matter much in that respect.

What is found to be so repulsive about it I would think is based in the fact that it is a group of people acting upon what they call a just penalty. It is not a state, it is not a Government and it is not a Religion either.

So it is really a hard thing to accept, but everyone in that region will see it differently. Some will see it as an icon of justice and others will see it as murder, but few will see it as Barbaric, IMO.

I guess it is a good thing they do not use immolate to the Gods of Justice by Fire?