Did anyone see Bush yesterday talking about the casualties in Iraq? IMMEDIATELY after he (nonchalantly) said that the war has killed 30,000 Iraqis and ~2,400 US soldiers, he made a little joke about something. HOW DESPICABLE!
Yes I did, and it immediately gave me a bad taste in my mouth. Everything I have been trying to give him credit for in my mind suddenly went away.
Nope, sorry it is not. It is a direct comparison. Nut case liberals everywhere and the media keeps calling Bush Hitler. They strive to continually make a striking comparision between Nazis and Bush. That said, I have every right to explore the same comparisons. You can directly compare WWII, the events the led up to it, as well as Rosevelt/Bush and Churchill/Blair. The similarities between the two wars and events that led up to them are uncanny. I suggest you watch the show "Events that Shook the World" on Discovery. Nothing far fetched here. BTW, Pearl Harbor and Hilter had nothing to do with one another. They were two differnt wars, two different countries. The US did not suddenly declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor. The two events/countries have nothing to do with one another. BTW, even after Pearl, 92% of the US still did not want to enter the war. Rosevelt broke the law several times to get the US involved in the war in Europe, which included purposely attacking and sinking a German U Boat, while claiming it fired first. Let's not also forget that Rosevelt was going to be impeached for aiding Europe and attempting to get the US into the war on several occasions. I could go on, but then again what's the point. I'm just reciting history, not re-writting it.
LOL, do you actually believe the above? OMG Usually I do not laugh, but that post deserves alot of it.... Yes the Japanese did attack us not Germany, they however were allies were they not? Who is rewriting it? You're using libs calling bush a hitler as some fantasy type way to make Iraq a comparison to WWII?!?!
I know y'all would rather have a weepy crying president like Jimmy Carter, but we already had Jimmy Carter and it was a national disaster. People die. Get over it. Compare these casualty numbers to the Battle of the Bulge -- just that one battle. You need some good historical grounding to see how silly you are being. George has been living with this war daily for more than four years now. No human being can do that while being all somber and weepy and still function as a leader. Keep a stiff upper lip! To quote the late great Winston Churchill, "War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin, keep out of the way till you can." The nation needs a leader, you seem to desire a weeper. Wallowing in pity and inaction won't win this war and bring peace. Wallowing in pity and inaction may make you feel good, but in the end it only results in allied casualties. So next time you laugh or tell a joke, just remember that you should be crying inside like little Barbara Streisands. Have fun with that. I hope it works for you.
That has anything to do with 'more or less' when describing how many civilians have been killed in 'his' war?
It's exactly the same. Every liberal nut case out there has been comparing Bush to Hitler, and calling the US and Bush Nazis. So on that note the comparison is quite valid. Aside from that even after Pearl Harbor 92% of the US still did not want to enter the war. Pearl Harbor and the War in Europe had nothing to do with one another at the time. Pearl is not what got the US involved in the War in Europe. You are thinking of the War with Japan. These are two different things. BTW, you can draw a direct comparison between WWII, Rosevelt/Bush, and Churchill/Blair. The similarities are uncanny. Rosevelt was almost impeached on several occasions for breaking the law in an attempt to get the US involved in the War in Europe. Rosevelt, lied, broke the law, and resorted to false intelligence several times. The US only entered the War in Europe after claiming to have been attacked by a German U Boat while escorting ships transporting weapons and tanks to England under the Lend/Lease Act. The fact is, the US had been chasing the U-Boat for 6 days in the hopes a confrontation would arise so the US could finally declare war on Germany. That U Boat sunk a US Destroyer, only after the US attacked the U Boat. I'm one who like to re-vist history, not re-write it. The events that led up to the US entering the war with Europe are almost 100% indenticle to the events leading up to Iraq and the War on Terror.
No they are not! Yes there are different reasons for attacks/declaring war in WWII, that does not make them anywhere similiar without smoking a big bowl full of crack in order to do so.
I was responding to Rob's ridiculous post and your hearty approbation for it. Now you are compaining about casualty estimates. You now demand exact casualty counts? Please, you can't possibly be serious.
No I do not, I however did not care at all for 'how' he delivered it...'more or less' in my mind is just plain disgusting.
Sorry man. That is history. I posted pure fact. Look it up. Just because you do not believe it, or cannot remember your high school history class does not make it untrue. What part do you find issue with specifically? The fact that 92% of the American public did not want to enter the war? The anti-war protests and anti-war with Germany signs? What?
For war or against, protests, etc has nothing to do with making them the same, or almost identical in comparison I do not disagree with what you're saying, I disagree as to the fact that it does not make them at all a comparison.
Oh my, this is shocking and depressing at the same time. Now posters in this thread are displaying that not only are they incapable of rational analysis, they are actually opposed to rational analysis. I am deeply saddened. Comparison and contrast are two of the most important tools in an analysts toolbox. But hell, let's just throw them away because we are unwilling or unable to do the difficult mental work required to use them!
Yeah, great! A half-retarded president that apparently views thousands of innocent dead people as a non-issue. See also "Katrina". I'm not saying he has to cry about it...but there's certainly no reason to act as if it's not a big deal.
The real reason why Japan and Germany were allies was to share the world and keep out of each others way. Of course that was going to be for a while 'til it was convenient. Then, just as he did with Stalin, the fuhrer or the emperor would have forgotten any agreement and go at each other. Unfortunately the UK didn't crumble, nor did the USSR (I'm not sure that was a stroke of luck for the Russians themselves) and the US joined in, so it didn't exactly go as planned... Conclusion: The war in Asia was a totally separate war.
Make a case for it then...History and war is one of my favorite topics, don't see much of a comparison between the 2....... Any war or conflict can bring up some comparisons that's just the nature of the beast, it does not make them exact comparisons at all...
I was no Clinton supporter, he however did not do it in front of the nation...and an intern compared to 30,000 dead are you kidding me? I thought i'd never support Clinton, but in this case as a human being I must...
So it's ok? And is it ok that he lied about it? And is it ok that prob someone around the world was dying for the country that he represented while he was performing such ridiculous acts? And when you say about the dead toll, please check the previous one, under Saddam. Although it might prove hard as at the time there wasn't enough freedom in Iraq to know about it, was there? BTW a lot of ex-supporters say they weren't, so who did you support at the time?