1
   

Could Bush Become another Hitler?

 
 
frolic
 
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 10:58 am
If evil powers wanted to impose a dictatorship on the United States, how would they do it?

They would do exactly as what is happening now: They would take advantage of a -so called- foreign menace like Muslim terrorism. I dont say they staged the 9/11 attacks. They are at least taking advantage of it. There are still a lot of questions. Why has Bush blocked an independent investigation of the WTC attack. Why was Kissinger appointed as head of the investigations and why did he resign after a few weeks. To clean up some nasty evidence? Who knows?

Those evil powers also would rely on the "sheep" to vote for the "Patriot Act," increased military expenditures, and the Department of "Homeland Security." Do we really need this? Do u feel more safe now?

The German people voted Hitler into power. Hitler arranged the burning of the Reichstag as an excuse to suspend civil rights. Hitler made his attack on Poland look like a defensive action. Just like Bush now says the attack on Iraq is self-defence.

Muslim militants do not represent a military threat to the United States, or even to Israel. The US is taking Saddam as a lesson to any country that would resist their global dictatorship.

Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia want to appease George W. but they are NEXT on the hit list. Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler in Munich but that did not diminish Hitler's appetite.

Reichstag Arrow WTC
Poland Arrow Iraq

Hitler demanded that Poland yield Danzig and the Polish "corridor" to Germany. From then until five months later on September 1st, when Hitler attacked Poland launching World War II, you did not have to be a smartass to know that German aggression against Poland was going to happen. Neither Hitler's attack on Poland, nor President Bush's planned attack on Iraq can be justified as "self-defence."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,253 • Replies: 37
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 11:04 am
I don't believe the Bush administration has the courage to attempt an outright coup, and I don't believe most of the military would support such a move. There WILL be an election in '04. Who will be president in '05 is open to conjecture.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 11:45 am
I despise Hitler because he was evil -- not because he was stupid. Bush is not nearly smart enough to be a Hitler -- and loathe as I am to acknowledge this, he is not nearly evil enough either.

Bush could easily become another Emmett Kelley, though, if you want to go down that road.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 12:53 pm
Frolic wrote:
Muslim militants do not represent a military threat to the United States, or even to Israel

In terms of the conventional war, they, surely do not.
But the World Wars in 21st century strongly differ from the WWI and II. These are Fourth Generation wars
Quote:
Earlier generational shifts, especially the shift from the second to the third generation, were marked by growing emphasis on several central ideas. Four of these seem likely to carry over into the fourth generation, and indeed to expand their influence.

The first is mission orders. Each generational change has been marked by greater dispersion on the battlefield. The fourth generation battlefield is likely to include the whole of the enemy's society. Such dispersion, coupled with what seems likely to be increased importance for actions by very small groups of combatants, will require even the lowest level to operate flexibly on the basis of the commander's intent.

Second is decreasing dependence on centralized logistics. Dispersion, coupled with increased value placed on tempo, will require a high degree of ability to live off the land and the enemy.

Third is more emphasis on maneuver. Mass, of men or fire power, will no longer be an overwhelming factor. In fact, mass may become a disadvantage as it will be easy to target. Small, highly maneuverable, agile forces will tend to dominate.

Fourth is a goal of collapsing the enemy internally rather than physically destroying him. Targets will include such things as the population's support for the war and the enemy's culture. Correct identification of enemy strategic centers of gravity will be highly important.

In broad terms, fourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between "civilian" and "military" may disappear. Actions will occur concurrently throughout all participants' depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a physical, entity. Major military facilities, such as airfields, fixed communications sites, and large headquarters will become rarities because of their vulnerability; the same may be true of civilian equivalents, such as seats of government, power plants, and industrial sites (including knowledge as well as manufacturing industries). Success will depend heavily on effectiveness in joint operations as lines between responsibility and mission become very blurred. Again, all these elements are present in third generation warfare; fourth generation will merely accentuate them.
.............................................................................................

Psychological operations may become the dominant operational and strategic weapon in the form of media/information intervention. Logic bombs and computer viruses, including latent viruses, may be used to disrupt civilian as well as military operations. Fourth generation adversaries will be adept at manipulating the media to alter domestic and world opinion to the point where skillful use of psychological operations will sometimes preclude the commitment of combat forces. A major target will be the enemy population's support of its government and the war. Television news may become a more powerful operational weapon than armored divisions.
...............................................................................................
However, the West no longer dominates the world. A fourth generation may emerge from non-Western cultural traditions, such as Islamic or Asiatic traditions. The fact that some non-Western areas, such as the Islamic world, are not strong in technology may lead them to develop a fourth generation through ideas rather than technology.

The genesis of an idea-based fourth generation may be visible in terrorism. This is not to say that terrorism is fourth generation warfare, but rather that elements of it may be signs pointing toward a fourth generation.

Some elements in terrorism appear to reflect the previously noted "carryovers" from third generation war fare. The more successful terrorists appear to operate on broad mission orders that carry down to the level of the individual terrorist. The "battlefield" is highly dispersed and includes the whole of the enemy's society. The terrorist lives almost completely off the land and the enemy. Terrorism is very much a matter of maneuver: the terrorist's firepower is small, and where and when he applies it is critical.

Those are excerpts, and the whole article, IMO, deserves being read.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 01:08 pm
One more consideration: Mr. Bush will not install the Fascist/Nazi regime in the USA not only due to lack of personal charisma that was possessed by Hitler and Mussolini in excessive quantities.
First of all, this is not his purpose (IMO, of course). I think, that he is quite satisfied with the USA being a democratic country. As a conservative politician, he tries to curtail certain trends in development of democracy that seem to him detrimental.
Second, the political, economical and social situation in the current USA strongly differ from these in Weimar Republic and post-WWI Italy.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 01:34 pm
Steissd

I wanted to mention this several times in the past -- but this seems like as good a time as any.

I remember you mentioning in one of the threads that you live in fear that a liberal will be elected president of the United States -- and that if that happened, Israel would be abandoned.

With all the respect in the world, Steissd, you and your fellow Israelis have MUCH MUCH MUCH more to fear from American conservatives than you have to fear from our liberals.

(I am neither!)

When the American conservatives finally finish with the use they have for the Jews in our country -- they will do more than simply drop support for them.

A significant part of the base for American Conservatives is a hateful element -- who despise Jews, Catholics, liberals, and almost anything and everyone else who is not part of their inner circle -- religiously, econmically, and politically. And a significant number of that number are nothing more than semi-literate rednecks who would sooner vote for Hitler than Sharon -- or for that matter, Begin or Perez.

The Israeli public who identify their conservatives with the conservatives of the United States are making one of the dumbest mistakes possible.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 01:40 pm
Do you think that "semi-literate rednecks" are so numerous that they can define the agenda of the U.S. government?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 01:46 pm
Frank is correct. The conservatives were always opposed to the jews until recently.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 01:58 pm
And how did it happen that the Republican President Richard M. Nixon arranged urgent supply of weapons to Israel during the war in 1973?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 02:03 pm
steissd wrote:
Do you think that "semi-literate rednecks" are so numerous that they can define the agenda of the U.S. government?


COMMENT:

I think you -- and Edgar and I and everyone else in this forum, would be amazed at just how much influence a group of dedicated semi-literate rednecks can exert.

Disregard this at your own peril: Israel has no friends in the American non-Jewish community -- and they are taking you folks for a ride. Especially since you people seem insisstent on supposing that the American conservative movement is related in any way to the Israeli conservative objectives.


But dream on if you choose. My hope is you will never have to find out the truth, because this group in power right now seems to be doing everything just right -- if their objective is to finally unmask the American conservative movement for what it is -- brain-dead and simplistic.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 02:05 pm
Nixon was also caught on his infamous tapes cursing Jews.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 02:10 pm
I know about this. But it seems to me, this resulted from the overwhelming support the U.S. Jews gave to his political opponents.
And I do not think that Jews are the biggest concern even of the rednecks. They have enough other minorities to hate: gays, illegal immigrants, Muslims, etc. I do not say that hatred is the positive feeling, but that is what really happens, IMO.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 02:57 pm
My statement is that Bush isn't a new Fascist leader. But more that he acts in the same manner. Take advantage of an event(Reichstag, WTC) in order to get things done. After that Hitler focused on Poland. Just like Busg focuses on Iraq. And they both tried to sell it as an act of selfdefence.

Ofcourse there will be no right arm raised on the next 4th of July. The only thing i wanted to say is that the most evil man of history and the present president of the USA have some similarities in their behavour. And therefore i asked: Could Bush Become another Hitler?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 03:13 pm
Hitler was not focused on Poland specifically. I do not have an accessible text of his book here, but I know that his main concerns referred to France. Attacking Poland was instrumental for both involving France in the war (since France had appropriate treaties with Poland), and for preparing to attack the USSR.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 03:38 pm
NO!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 04:56 pm
The point here is, I have known these type of people all my life. They will use the cause of the Jews or whomever else until they no longer find it expedient. They have always been against the Jews in the past. Who is to say they will not revert when the tide of fortune changes?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 05:38 pm
What does it mean: "they were against Jews"? Did they (the Conservative politicians) advocate disenfranchisement of Jews or something worse than that?
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 05:53 pm
Rhetorical answer to original question: "Is the Pope Catholic?"

Frank,
...During the debates, before Bush was appointed president, the subject of capital punishment came up I'll never forget the gleam in his eye, as he bragged about the people he had killed. It was reminiscent of a guy in the locker room speaking of his sexual conquests.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 06:15 pm
not speaking with any sense of authority, my limited understanding is the the reilgious wrong (Jerry Flawell) believes that the coming end of the world/jesus return will be in Israel-hence they support the current state of Israel expecting that it will become Christian Holy Land with the destruction of Jews to follow. but i could be wrong.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2003 06:23 pm
OK, I know that the Christian fundamentalists believe that when Jesus returns, part of Jews will be convinced and voluntarily convert to Christianity, and those that will not, will die. But what does it has to do with hatred of Jews? The Christian fundamentalists believe in triumph of their religious faith (otherwise they would not be considered religious people). And they do not call to bash or kill the Jews: they believe that this will be done by the Providence, regarding these stubborn ones that would deny the obvious facts. IMO, if and when Jesus Christ actually returns to the Holy Land, this will be the best incentive to the Jews to believe in His Divine and Messianic essence, and no killing will be necessary.
By the way, the observant Jews believe in coming of Messiah, but they do not know for sure who is this. And what if this man is Jesus?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Could Bush Become another Hitler?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 06:52:08