the jewish holocaust caused by HITLER!

[-Demosthenes-]

Not say Hitler was a good man, nor that I agree of what he did to the Jew’s….but just image what if Hitler won….damn that would suck…but would there be any good thing out of it….no diseases like AID and HIV and **** like that b/c he would have killed the weak…damn that was the only good dream he ever had….

Back to the "ends justify the means" question. Could it?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Not say Hitler was a good man, nor that I agree of what he did to the Jew’s….but just image what if Hitler won….damn that would suck…but would there be any good thing out of it….no diseases like AID and HIV and **** like that b/c he would have killed the weak…damn that was the only good dream he ever had….

No HIV or AIDS? When half the Nazi party leadership was queer? :rofl

 

[Loxd4]

No HIV or AIDS? When half the Nazi party leadership was queer? :rofl

Can you back this up, Man? I know there are fact saying hitler was gay...find some more people in the Nazi party that was gay...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Can you back this up, Man? I know there are fact saying hitler was gay...find some more people in the Nazi party that was gay...

I never said Hilter was gay, I said half the Nazi Party, something that can be easily verified. Ernest Roehm was one of the founders, a known queer, and so were others.

My statement "half" was an exagerration, but the Nazis were engaging in simple and predictable hypocrisy when they started in on the homosexuals, but they're Nazis and no one ever expected much out of them, anyway.

Hitler was in serious lust with his 16 year-old niece, who committed suicide with his pistol. It's never been proven if he'd ever done anything with her, though.

But basically my point was that the supremacy of the Nazi Party would have done nothing to prevent the rise and spread of HIV and AIDs. Given the nature of totalitarian systems, I'd say that the disease would have spread even faster because of the control of the media. The Chinese lied about the disease and many people were infected via bad blood well after the West knew better, for example.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Actually quite the opposite my friend. You break the backbone of the enemy you break the enemies will and ability to strive and make rpogress because you just rendered them incompatible. It was directly casue the mass city bombings we were able to roll right on through becasue of the fact we incinerated any dug in strong holds the germans might have been in.

Prove me wrong. I have reliable sources that say just the opposite--my friend. It really did little to "break them" throughout much of the war. Production went down little and moral was relatively maintained. Again, provide credible sources. I will provide mine.

Yes that happened because the allied forces helped them after an area was secure. However, why would they rebuild if the next day we were just going to go through there again and decimate it once more? Doesnt make sense does it?

What are you talking about? The allied forces helped the nazis rebuild their factories soon after they bombed them? They helped them move underground so that little was actually damaged? No, your make-believe interpretation of what I said makes no sense. You're knowledge of history is awefully simplistic. Have you ever read history texts? Few historians believe the bombing was highly successful throughout the war.

Again you better brush up a little more on your war history bud. Now I can understand it didnt help very much inregards to winning the enemies morale support but we werent looking for moral support we were looking to complete objectives which war should be about. This is why we will never win like this in iraq and we didnt win like this in vietnam.

First off, I am not your buddy. Secondly, I got it from quite relible sources. Again, provide counterevidence. I will trust "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," "Inside Hitler's Germany," and "The Third Reich" more than you're silly statements.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

The biggest problems with the German industrial effort was the use of slave labour, concentration camp labour, poor work discipline, and poor economic decisions by higher eschelons of society. Of these reasons, the most notable were: poor strategy, frittered resources, lack of application of mass production, inability to provide reliable labour (due to the overuse of slave labour) and the lack of women in the workforce. Furthermore, the United States had far more industrial capacity than the entire axis combined. The summer of 1944, however, finally led to some gains for the bombing campaign, but even these did not have the massive effect they intended.

After bombing, the majority of major factory targets were either missed completely, allowing full production, or they were hit and repaired within a couple days. Poor allied intel provided for this more fully. An example would be the ballbering plants. Full production once again resumed. The bombing was actually quite a failure when you look at the bigger picture. According to "Inside Hitler's Germany," the allied bombing only started to actually make any signfiicant impact around late 44 to mid 45, and even then, reduction of productive capacity was about 25-30%, but most of the damage was "rapidy repaired" to normal within a few days or a month at max. By this time, however, the Germans were already losing the war for myriad other reasons. Further, allied intelligence, according to IHG, was actually quite poor. They would bomb targets thinking they destroyed them, thus damaging productive capacity, whenthey really did nothing of the sort. Albert Speer mocked this as "throwing away success when it was already in their hands." Even with bombing, sacrifice and discipline allowed many german factories to fulfill orders anyway. Many factories went underground, and while this hurt expansion, like I mentioned, much production was fulfilled anyway, and it just made it harder for the allies to destroy them. As is to be noted, and mentioned previously, only in the late 44 and 45 did bombing strategy change and becomming truely effective, but once again, by then, it was too late. Finally, they lost their valuable fuel depots and production went down. This was after many, many unsuccessful raids over 4 years.

Bombing was important, but not nearly as effective, like I said. It did disrupt production to an extent and the delivery of goods, but to act as if it were the "war winner," is false by any stretch. Speer wrote: "the allied bomber campaign was the greatest lost battle of the war."

Now, you could say that bombing had more of an impact on citizen morale. It did to an extent, but that was also not as significant as you might think. The bombing didn't break the moral in Germany, and, since they weren't running the war, and a huge percentage of those in industry were slaves and concentration-camp workers anyway, it contributed little. Discipline quelled many of these problems to an extent. Morale had been reduced by 25% in industries, but that was not by bombing alone, but by a combination of bombing as well as various other elements. Absenteeism was already high in germany prior to the effects of the mass bombing campaign. Most of the production expansion was stopped, but Germany decided to expand too late anyway, instead focusing on less mass-production and more on smaller, isolated firms.

The mass bombings started having an effect so late in the war that it is patently absurd to claim that it "won" the war like some magic bullet. It was important and a part of the whole, but it my comment was that it was not the "game winner." WW2 was not won alone by massive bombing, which came late in the war.

 

[dragonslayer]

Umm... I agree with you but he wasnt the only one who has killed women and children to exterminate a race or something. You do know that right?

Furthermore, was it ok in your mind becasue he killed women and children that we invaded germany and bombed the smitherines out of them? Just curoius

Yes it is ok that we invaded Germany. Nazi Germany was responsible for the deaths of over 200 million Jews, Russians, Poles, Austrians, Ukrainians, Norwegian, Danish, Armenians, Georgians, Greeks, North Africans, British, French, Dutchs Belgians, and you are saying the terrible war we waged to stop the Nazis was not justified. The Bombing was designed to stop Nazi Production and breat moral which it did very effectively by the end of the war. The German Army was surrendering in droves by the end of the war, the hard core defense was by the SS, and some units of the Army. The Germans were afraid of the reprisals of the Soviets, and so they surrendered to the Americans.

World War II, is a totally different situation from Bush's War, where we attacked Iraq, and committed terrible unprovoked agression.

God Bless America land that I love. Down with the anti American Neo Conservatives.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

World War II, is a totally different situation from Bush's War, where we attacked Iraq, and committed terrible unprovoked agression.

God Bless America land that I love. Down with the anti American Neo Conservatives.

And if Hitler was taken down before he occupied Austria? It would have been a terrible unprovoked aggression. I wonder how to take down a dangerous power before they start killing without "terrible unprovoken [sic] aggression". I suppose we have to wait for the people to die, for the nations to fall, and for the people to be oppressed before we do anything.

 

[dragonslayer]

And if Hitler was taken down before he occupied Austria? It would have been a terrible unprovoked aggression. I wonder how to take down a dangerous power before they start killing without "terrible unprovoken [sic] aggression". I suppose we have to wait for the people to die, for the nations to fall, and for the people to be oppressed before we do anything.

you are suggesting that it was Ok to attack Irag in 2001 because they may pose a threat to others in 2040 or 2080. Have yu lost control of your brain? Sounds like there is little warped Bush Bug crawling around in there.

What aggression had Irag committed that made him a threat to anyone. We kicked his ass when Saddam threatened Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. We bombed Iraq every time they blinked during the clinton years, and Saddam was scared to death of the United States. UN inspectors burned and destroyed his missiles.

Any comparison to WW2 and Bush's War is pure BS and you know it. We invaded Iraq for no reason, and then invented lies to justify the invasion, looting their oil, and the loss of so many fine young Americans lives. I am not opposed to war and I am not opposed to america defending itself. I am opposed to unprovoked aggression against a nation that is no threat to us.

 

[FreeThinker]

We invaded Iraq for no reason, and then invented lies to justify the invasion, looting their oil, and the loss of so many fine young Americans lives.

Yeah Saddam torturing his own people for 25 years. No big deal. Hey so a few women were raped then fed to dogs, so a few fathers were stuffed into woodchoppers while their kids watched. Who are we to judge another culture's customs?

The whole Kuwait thing? A mistake! Saddam didn't really steal all the cars off the streets and all the gold from the banks. No no no. Who are we to judge their ways?

Saddam gassing the kurds? They probably deserved it! Just like those damn jews deserved to have Hitler kill them all! Who are we to judge another nation?

Saddam refusing to grant UN inspectors access to certain sites, then kicked them out of country for months at a time? Iraqi scientists keeping lab equipment and technical documentation for future WMD production in their homes? Violation of more than 16 UN resolutions? Abuse of the oil for food program?

All lies! Lies that Bush invented! None of those things ever ever happened!

...

And on a serious note, don't you pretend to love and respect American soldiers. You spit on everything they stand for.

 

[DeeJayH]

All lies! Lies that Bush invented! None of those things ever ever happened!

...

And on a serious note, don't you pretend to love and respect American soldiers. You spit on everything they stand for.

cowards, appeasers and critics will never get it
any country run by them would be doomed to failure

 

[Axismaster]

cowards, appeasers and critics will never get it
any country run by them would be doomed to failure

If you think you are Winston Churchill by giving the "appeasers" speech, I think you are wrong, because he would have never approved of you guys following Bush blindly over the edge just like the Germans followed that one idiot with the thin black mustachio.

 

[alphieb]

Yes it is ok that we invaded Germany. Nazi Germany was responsible for the deaths of over 200 million Jews, Russians, Poles, Austrians, Ukrainians, Norwegian, Danish, Armenians, Georgians, Greeks, North Africans, British, French, Dutchs Belgians, and you are saying the terrible war we waged to stop the Nazis was not justified. The Bombing was designed to stop Nazi Production and breat moral which it did very effectively by the end of the war. The German Army was surrendering in droves by the end of the war, the hard core defense was by the SS, and some units of the Army. The Germans were afraid of the reprisals of the Soviets, and so they surrendered to the Americans.

World War II, is a totally different situation from Bush's War, where we attacked Iraq, and committed terrible unprovoked agression.

God Bless America land that I love. Down with the anti American Neo Conservatives.

Thank You,

This is the only unprovoked war in the history of our country and our founding fathers are turning in their graves.

 

[vergiss]

And on a serious note, don't you pretend to love and respect American soldiers. You spit on everything they stand for.

Yeah, because sending them off to be slaughtered shows so much concern and love for the US Forces. :roll:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This is the only unprovoked war in the history of our country and our founding fathers are turning in their graves.

It is? Never heard of the Spanish American War? Vietnam?

We had reasons, valid reasons, for investing Iraq.

Bush didn't bother to use them, though.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

you are suggesting that it was Ok to attack Irag in 2001 because they may pose a threat to others in 2040 or 2080. Have yu lost control of your brain? Sounds like there is little warped Bush Bug crawling around in there.

Ah, the height of political debate, of human nature even: the personal insult. Congratulations on the jump from logical thought to personal insult. You've proved a point, although probably not the one you intended.

What aggression had Irag committed that made him a threat to anyone. We kicked his ass when Saddam threatened Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. We bombed Iraq every time they blinked during the clinton years, and Saddam was scared to death of the United States. UN inspectors burned and destroyed his missiles.

Think of it this way...

Bush has taken over the country. He's dismissed congress, disbanded the local government and installed his own secret police and military governments that will kill anyone who speaks against the government. He regularly kills political prisoners, tortures for information, sends military forces to capture girls for "military and government use," bombing and gassing Hispanic/black/other minority settlements for ethnic cleansing (like the Kurdish people under Saddam), and attacks neighboring countries for their resources.

Do you:
A) Want other countries to **** off, because if they invade and take out Bush, our market will be open to do business with other countries, and they my buy our goods and make money?

B) Want other counties to bomb you cities and industrial centers to keep Bush down, having our citizens being regularly killed, and keeping Bush in power?

OR

C) Want other countries to invade the U.S., capture and try Bush for his crimes, And set up a new democratic government?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Makes you think eh?

 

[dragonslayer]

Yeah Saddam torturing his own people for 25 years. No big deal. Hey so a few women were raped then fed to dogs, so a few fathers were stuffed into woodchoppers while their kids watched. Who are we to judge another culture's customs?

The whole Kuwait thing? A mistake! Saddam didn't really steal all the cars off the streets and all the gold from the banks. No no no. Who are we to judge their ways?

Saddam gassing the kurds? They probably deserved it! Just like those damn jews deserved to have Hitler kill them all! Who are we to judge another nation?

Saddam refusing to grant UN inspectors access to certain sites, then kicked them out of country for months at a time? Iraqi scientists keeping lab equipment and technical documentation for future WMD production in their homes? Violation of more than 16 UN resolutions? Abuse of the oil for food program?

All lies! Lies that Bush invented! None of those things ever ever happened!

...

And on a serious note, don't you pretend to love and respect American soldiers. You spit on everything they stand for.

All those things happened. If Bush kills everyone in Oregon because he hates Democrats would that justify an attack from Russia on the United states.

I don't respect the terriible inhuman job that Bush as given our soldiers. Why do you think that the majority of the troops that come home all become democrats. They all know that Bush is a stupid man. Bush is bought an paid for by Exxon and Haliburton. Bush is anti the american people and pro the multinational countries that have no loyalty to the United States

Bush and Cheney should be ousted and charged with War CRimes against humanity.

Some how we need to start fighting the war on terrorism and stop trying control the worlds oil, and make the Rich folks richer.

time to take care of America. and it's people.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

All those things happened. If Bush kills everyone in Oregon because he hates Democrats would that justify an attack from Russia on the United states.

I don't respect the terriible inhuman job that Bush as given our soldiers. Why do you think that the majority of the troops that come home all become democrats. They all know that Bush is a stupid man. Bush is bought an paid for by Exxon and Haliburton. Bush is anti the american people and pro the multinational countries that have no loyalty to the United States

Bush and Cheney should be ousted and charged with War CRimes against humanity.

Some how we need to start fighting the war on terrorism and stop trying control the worlds oil, and make the Rich folks richer.

time to take care of America. and it's people.

More importantly, and a much better way of viewing the situation, is that countries ruled by gangsters don't have any inherent right against invasion.

Because those rulers took power by force, as one gang gaining surpremacy over others by simple use of force, they don't have legitimacy.

At our whim, as a legimate government established with the consent of the governed, we may, as it suits our interests, intervene and use force to expel those gangsters. Since force is the basis of their claim to power, displacing them by force is perfectly valid.

It is very funny indeed watching people that refuse to understand the moral implications of force object to the use of force on their gangster friends.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Oh, and I'm reading this book "Treblinka", by Jean-Francois Steiner.

How any person can deny the reality of what I'm reading is a mystery. They must be diseased.

 

[dragonslayer]

More importantly, and a much better way of viewing the situation, is that countries ruled by gangsters don't have any inherent right against invasion.

Because those rulers took power by force, as one gang gaining surpremacy over others by simple use of force, they don't have legitimacy.

At our whim, as a legimate government established with the consent of the governed, we may, as it suits our interests, intervene and use force to expel those gangsters. Since force is the basis of their claim to power, displacing them by force is perfectly valid.

It is very funny indeed watching people that refuse to understand the moral implications of force object to the use of force on their gangster friends.

More importantly, and a much better way of viewing the situation, is that countries ruled by gangsters don't have any inherent right against invasion.

I agree with your quote above one hundred percent. you quote is a perfect description of the Bush Administration.

 

[DeeJayH]

More importantly, and a much better way of viewing the situation, is that countries ruled by gangsters don't have any inherent right against invasion.

I agree with your quote above one hundred percent. you quote is a perfect description of the Bush Administration.

Except for one major flaw in your Bush hating logic

"Bush and his cronies" were not only LEGALLY elected to power, they were RE-ELECTED

do you get it? or are you just another unhinged whacko like Al Gore who just rants and raves without a clue?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

More importantly, and a much better way of viewing the situation, is that countries ruled by gangsters don't have any inherent right against invasion.

I agree with your quote above one hundred percent. you quote is a perfect description of the Bush Administration.

What an idiot. Last time I checked, the United States had a perfectly legimate election and that's how Bush became president.

 

[dragonslayer]

Except for one major flaw in your Bush hating logic

"Bush and his cronies" were not only LEGALLY elected to power, they were RE-ELECTED

do you get it? or are you just another unhinged whacko like Al Gore who just rants and raves without a clue?

Of Course they were re-elected not by the people but by the Supreme courtl

for the first time in History, the court broke the law of the constitution which does not give the court the right to elect the president. the constitution spells out how a president should be elected and it is not by the Supreme Court, and that was before the court was ruled by the anti-american people right wing of the fascist branch of the Republican party. What frost me is that we are such passive nation, that we are letting the Right Wing Tyrants get away with it. Bush may be Right but he certainly is not correct and only represent the Corporatiions and the thirty percent of the population that can not read.

two days after 9/11 it was announced by the congressional committee reviewing the florida election a fraudulent and Bush had in fact lost the eletion. In fact on the news, Gore and other Democrats decided not oppose Bush because of 9/11. Wow was that a mistake. The Democrats allowed this candy ass fascist to remain our president for the sake of National Unity in face of the attack on 9/11 by Egyptians and Saudi Arabians. Bush showed
us. He attacked Iraq which was not envolved in 9/11. and Now Exxon and Haliburton are getting rich. Good thinking Bush. If we are attacked again by Saudi Arabians, we will probably attack Argentina, since Argentina has some oil reserves.

 

[cnredd]

Of Course they were re-elected not by the people but by the Supreme courtl

for the first time in History, the court broke the law of the constitution which does not give the court the right to elect the president. the constitution spells out how a president should be elected and it is not by the Supreme Court, and that was before the court was ruled by the anti-american people right wing of the fascist branch of the Republican party. What frost me is that we are such passive nation, that we are letting the Right Wing Tyrants get away with it. Bush may be Right but he certainly is not correct and only represent the Corporatiions and the thirty percent of the population that can not read.

two days after 9/11 it was announced by the congressional committee reviewing the florida election a fraudulent and Bush had in fact lost the eletion. In fact on the news, Gore and other Democrats decided not oppose Bush because of 9/11. Wow was that a mistake. The Democrats allowed this candy ass fascist to remain our president for the sake of National Unity in face of the attack on 9/11 by Egyptians and Saudi Arabians. Bush showed
us. He attacked Iraq which was not envolved in 9/11. and Now Exxon and Haliburton are getting rich. Good thinking Bush. If we are attacked again by Saudi Arabians, we will probably attack Argentina, since Argentina has some oil reserves.

I gotta hear this one...

Please explain, in detail, what EXACTLY the Supreme Court ruled on...

Give the case name, and the ruling, and the majority opinion...

Once you read it, you might change your opinion...

I doubt it though...spouting absurdities work so much better when the facts don't get in the way...