Is George Bush a greater threat to the world than Bin Laden?

[Mr Spinkles]

I understand. There are Americans who are arrogant like that. I just hope you know that not all Americans see things that way.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I understand. There are Americans who are arrogant like that. I just hope you know that not all Americans see things that way.

Personally, I'm yet to meet an individual American I didn't like. Collectively you can be a bit hows your father, but I think that's because the ones that make the most noise are the ones who need kicking.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Spinkles -

I've said this before, and it bears repeating: You have an incredibly bright future ahead of you. In all exchanges on this site, I try to keep in mind what type of person is on the other end of the discussion. Hence, you will see me take vastly different tones with you than I would with some of the members that have more life under their belt.

I could be wrong, but my guess is that you and Ceridwen are both products of strongly Republican families. If that is true, I think that has a tremendous impact on how you view the world (as it should). In all honesty, I was the product of a staunchly Republican family as well - I first registered as Republican while still in High School.

I want (so desperately) for you to be your own person - and if you ultimately remain Republican, I will respect and salute your decision. At this age in your life, I think you hold many (if not all) of the positions you do based almost exclusively on your environment (and the inevitable dearth of real world experience that goes hand in hand with youth).

Know this - short of becoming a right wing religious zealot on a mission from God, you will always have my respect and admiration - you have earned that by demonstrating the ability to present and defend your position with reason and logic, and the ability to concede a point when it is demonstrated to be illogical. You have also demonstrated the wisdom to allow others to have differing points of view, without deeming them to be unworthy of consideration. Sadly, these are all traits that the majority of adults do not possess. I would consider Bush to be in that group of adults.

Lady Lazarus -
I apologize for any comments that I have made that might be seen in that light. America is the biggest kid on the block, for good or ill. I am proud of my country, in the sense that it has shown (historically) a great propensity for using its military, economic, and technological strength for the betterment of the world - as opposed to using these advantages for world domination. I realize that we have had our moments of using our power in nefarious ways (destabilizing sovereign governments, etc.), but overwhelmingly, America has been magnanimous in the use and distribution of its gifts.
Unfortunately, the ability to recognize that there are many other countries that have sacrificed for (and contributed to) the cause of freedom is not one of our strengths. This makes it appear that we think we are the only beacon of righteousness and good, when the truth is something else. I am saying that we understand the contributions of other countries, we just do a poor job of saying thank you and giving credit where it is due.
I hope you (and all others) take great pride in the sacrifices of your forebearers in the pursuit of autonomy. Certainly, your sacrifices are no less than ours, and should never be minimalized or forgotten.

Take care,
TVOR

 

[Trinitas]

I got a little ranty there, I know. I just find the whole (and to all those Americans out there, I don't mean this to offend anyone),'thank God for us, without us the world would be plunged into 1,000 years of darkness,' thing ridiculous. What it implies is that the USA is the only nation out there that cares to stand up for anyone, and if anyone else DOES stand up, well, you know, they're not really up to much.

Whoa! I'm gone a couple days and look what happens. I didn't mean to disparage the efforts of anyone else LL. All I meant was that the United States was the only nation powerful enough to stop Hitler, Tojo, et al. You're putting words into my mouth by saying that I discount the efforts of our allies in past wars. I did not imply any of the things you inferred.

 

[jewscout]

Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922. Hitler in 1933. Shortly thereafter, both leaders began building up their army, air force, and naval forces--violating the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI. No decisive action was taken by the League of Nations. Italy then invaded Ethiopia. In 1936 Hitler sent troops into the Demilitarized Zone of the Rhineland. The nations of central Europe responded by offering Hitler concessions (i.e. appeasement). In March of 1938 Hitler annexed Austria. Then he demanded the resource-rich Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia...he threatened war unless his demands were met. A few months later in September of 1938, England and France agreed to the Munich Pact, giving Hitler permission to invade the Sudetenland (appeasement). In March of 1939, Hitler took even more of Czechoslovakia. Italy invaded Albania in April.

Finally, after years of deception, aggression, and defiance of international law, England and France took an assertive stance and promised to defend Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey if attacked. Hitler invaded Poland September 1, 1939, after which France and Germany declared war. Russia did not declare war until Germany invaded it on June 22, 1941. The U.S. stayed out of the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

It doesn't take a Miss Cleo to see that over the course of six years, Hitler proved over and over to be a deceptive, aggressive tyrant bent on building his military strength and using it to conquer his neighbors. Compromise is always preferable to war...however, in those six years other nations did all the "compromising" (i.e. appeasement). Hitler never compromised--he only gave false promises and trivial, diversionary concessions. WWII cost many more lives than WWI, and could have been prevented had free nations stood firm against deceptive tyrants. The League of Nations should have stood firm against Hitler (and Mussolini) in 1933, when was a mere "caged Chihuaha". Appeasement for six years allowed Germany to become like rabid wolves.

Actually Hitler didn't do any military buildup. The military was already revamped and prepared to mobilize before 1933. This was the work of former Chancellor Stresseman who had signed treaties with the Soviet Union to develop new weapons and Stresseman had found the loopholes in the Treaty that allowed him to work with the limitations set on the German Wehrmacht and still create a military ready for mobilization when the day came. Hitler was good at nothing but beating a drum. He just happened to have this newly designed German military dropped in his lap.

And remember at this point in the 1930's the world was in the grips of a global depression and most people could give a crap what was going on in Germany, their thinking was, i'm starving, my family is starving, and i have no work focus on the domestic problems not Germany.
And Hitler was welcomed into Austria, since the facist forces had squashed the only opposition to the anschluss, the communists in Vienna.
The Sudetenland was also heavily Ethnicly German which was his excuse and it was at this same Munich Pact that Chamberlain basically told Hitler this was it no more. But Hitler thought he could push it one more step before war by going into Poland, he misscalculated that one.

Stalin stayed out of the war because he thought he had an air-tight pact with Hitler and never thought he would invade. The fact that Stalin locked himself in his room for the first 2 weeks of Operation Barbarosa shows that.

And America wanted no part of the European war and only got involved because Hitler declared war on us, not Pearl Harbor.

In hindsight you are exactly right Spinkles, but they didn't have that luxury, like i said before most people in Europe didn't think Hitler would go to war. After The Great War they didn't think any leader would want to go to war. And the League of Nations wasn't established as a forum to confront people but as a tool to prevent war of any kind. There had never been a war like that before and the League was established as an institution dedicated to stopping war, not a very realistic idea but thats what it was. Not to mention the US wasn't part of the League which hurt it as well.
No one back then knew what we know now about Hitler and his military aims. Hell most German Jews didn't see the Holocaust coming either, they thought they'd just find their nitch in this new Nazi regime as they had always done.

I mean how many of us saw 9/11 coming?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

jewscout-- I am well aware of the reasons many countries chose to follow a policy of appeasement between 1933 and 1939. However, this does nothing to refute my earlier claim that appeasement is folly. If anything, you have only shown that appeasement is folly even when other factors make such a policy appealing.

Actually Hitler didn't do any military buildup.

I think you may want to recheck your history books. From: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Biographies/MainBiographies/H/hitler/2.html

Breaking the Versailles Treaty - 1934-1937
[size=-1][size=-1]Hitler ordered the army to be trebled in size, from the 100,000 man Versailles Treaty limit, to 300,000 men by October of 1934. In addition, Goering had also been tasked by Hitler with the training of air force pilots and the design of military aircraft. In March 1935 Hitler decided to take a gamble and test the resolve of Britain and France by authorising Goering to reveal to a British official the existence of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force).There was little reaction (its existence was already known anyway). At the same time that Hitler was increasing the strength of the armed forces, he was also following a policy of making speeches proclaiming a desire for peace and the folly of war.[/size][/size]

I think this is also relevant:

The Re-militarisation of the Rhineland - 1936
[size=-1]On March 7th 1936 a small force of German troops marched across the Rhine bridges into the demilitarised areas of Germany towards Aachen, Trier and Saarbruecken. Thus, breaking the Locarno Pact of 1925.Immediately following the re-militarisation of the Rhineland areas, Hitler once again preached in public his desire for peace throughout Europe and offered to negotiate new non-aggression pacts with several countries including France and Belgium. At the same time rapid construction of German defensive fortifications began along the French and Belgian frontiers.[/size]

No one back then knew what we know now about Hitler and his military aims.

No one ever "knows" anything about the future (except Miss Cleo). However, this does not excuse the fact that the free nations tolerated lies, deception, violation of treaties, military buildup and continuous expansion for six years. Making concession after concession to avoid conflict at all costs and tolerating it when the other side does not live up to their end of the bargain is a sure strategy for failure. Such a policy includes no reliable mechanism to ensure peace.

And you don't need to know the future to know this--history teaches this lesson well enough. Perhaps that's why the historian Winston Churchill knew years in advance that the appeasement strategy would fail, making war with Germany inevitable.

I mean how many of us saw 9/11 coming?

Terrorist experts knew long ago such an attack was inevitable, but sometimes it takes a Pearl Harbor to get Americans to take a more proactive role in the world.

TVOR-- Thanks *sniff* I love you man!

 

[linwood]

I think the real threat facing the global community is an unwillingness on the part of U.N. nations to take action when confronted by criminal regimes. WWII, it seems, taught the world little about the folly of appeasement.

I do indeed agree with this, the UN is a toothless tiger that lends no support to it`s own decisions.

There are people dying in Sudan right now and the UN has issued numerous warnings but the Gov. of Sudan knows the UN will do nothing so it continues it`s genocide.
While they debate to appease their consciences thousands are dying.

Tell me ..why are we not doing something about this genocide?
Our Sec. of State himself was the first to declare the atrocities in Sudan as genocide and yet we do nothing?

All it took for Liberia to halt its stupidity were a couple of US troop transports visible off its coast.
Considering the vast bulk of our military is already in the region..why do we do nothing?

Why do we go to great lengths to "Halt the intolerant regime of saddam" yet will not even take relatively small steps to thwart this genocide?

Is there oil in Sudan?

 

[linwood]

Terrorist experts knew long ago such an attack was inevitable, but sometimes it takes a Pearl Harbor to get Americans to take a more proactive role in the world.

And the Bush admin was more than aware of that fact well before he ever took office.

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

9/11 anyone?

The above is a quote from the Project for a New American century report on rebuilding Americas defenses".
Right after that quote it goes on to describe the greatest threats to us as being N.Korea, Iraq, & Iran....Axis of Evil anyone?
The report reads like a roadmap to global military world domination, it is truly scary stuff.
The writers and framers of this report and foundation are the very same people who are right now running our country.
Dick Cheney,Paul Wolfowitz. Donald Rumsfield, and Jeb Bush are signatories of original charter to this foundation and this report.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Scroll to the bottom of that page and notice the names there.
Many you will recognise, many you won`t.
Those you do not recognise run a google search on and you will see that most if not all are now in high level positions of the current adimn. or in high places inside organizations of the religious right.
Read the report I linked.

The site is large and so is that report but if you are into a really good scare take the time to have a good look.

This report is the main reason I never wanted to see Bush re-elected.

 

[jewscout]

hmmmmmm
Your right though Mr_Spinkles perhaps i should rephrase my sentence...
The military advances so many attribute to Adolf Hitler had nothing to do with his "military genuis" or whatever. He happened upon a German Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe that was as advanced as any on the planet, though not large numerically.
Your right he did increase the numbers but the skeleton of the new German Army can be traced back to the early 1920's long before Hitler or the Nazi party came to power. And the Luftwaffe was in the same boat. Without this Hitler never could have mobilized the German military the way it was. Alot of this stuff you won't find in your average history book, you have to do some serious digging.
I just can't say that Hitler was a good military leader and not laugh.

that was more of a statement wasn't it...oh well

Terrorist experts knew long ago such an attack was inevitable, but sometimes it takes a Pearl Harbor to get Americans to take a more proactive role in the world.

True but how many of us are terrorist experts? I'm talking about your average American, anything is possible but i doubt many of us would have thought it probable. yeah sometimes it does take a Pearl Harbor.

 

[huajiro]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]I say yes--because he has so much more power of mass destruction than Bin Laden. Bush has already horribly misused this power. I hope for the sake of this country and the world, that he has learned a lesson.[/font]

A good-old-boy with nuclear weapons in the back of his pickup. Yeah, that is pretty damn scary.

 

[maggie2]

Personally I think Bush and bin Laden are equally dangerous. Those two make a good pair...neither one gives a darn about anyone else, they're just power hungry...go bomb someone and to heck with the consequences.

 

[anders]

I am reasonably certain that there is a G.W. Bush, commanding immense forces.

On the other hand, I find no proof that there is a Usama bin Ladin commanding any kind of organization or forces or whatever. From what I read in the newspapers, Mr. bin Ladin may well be invented by neocons, needing a foreign threat after the fall of the Soviet Union.

A Dubya waging wars in foreign countries is a more serious threat to world stabilty and peace than a fictious U. bin Ladin, who hasn't been proved to cause trouble of any kind anywhere.

If you are curious, I write bin Ladin, not Laden, because there is no "e" vowel in written Arabic. I also write al-Qa`ìda, not al-Qaeda, when needed; not that I think such a thing exists.

If you don't get my drift, I'll spell it out: Bush is a threat to all the world in many ways, Usama bin Ladin is not in any way.

 

[huajiro]

Whoa! I'm gone a couple days and look what happens. I didn't mean to disparage the efforts of anyone else LL. All I meant was that the United States was the only nation powerful enough to stop Hitler, Tojo, et al. You're putting words into my mouth by saying that I discount the efforts of our allies in past wars. I did not imply any of the things you inferred.

We didn't stop Hitler by ourselves, we helped, and we didn't go in until the other countries had beat the hell out of themselves trying to stop him. Our soldiers were heroes, and I will always defend them, but our Government is a little shady.

 

[huajiro]

Personally I think Bush and bin Laden are equally dangerous. Those two make a good pair...neither one gives a darn about anyone else, they're just power hungry...go bomb someone and to heck with the consequences.

We should just put them both in a ring together, leave the rest of us out of it.:jam:

 

[huajiro]

Personally, I'm yet to meet an individual American I didn't like. Collectively you can be a bit hows your father, but I think that's because the ones that make the most noise are the ones who need kicking.

I am American and I meet Americans every day that I do not like...if you want me to elaborate, I will tell you exactly why.

 

[huajiro]

TVOR, you have got my respect.

 

[huajiro]

hmmmmmm
Your right though Mr_Spinkles perhaps i should rephrase my sentence...
The military advances so many attribute to Adolf Hitler had nothing to do with his "military genuis" or whatever. He happened upon a German Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe that was as advanced as any on the planet, though not large numerically.
Your right he did increase the numbers but the skeleton of the new German Army can be traced back to the early 1920's long before Hitler or the Nazi party came to power. And the Luftwaffe was in the same boat. Without this Hitler never could have mobilized the German military the way it was. Alot of this stuff you won't find in your average history book, you have to do some serious digging.
I just can't say that Hitler was a good military leader and not laugh.

that was more of a statement wasn't it...oh well

True but how many of us are terrorist experts? I'm talking about your average American, anything is possible but i doubt many of us would have thought it probable. yeah sometimes it does take a Pearl Harbor.

Hitler just happened to be in the right place at the right time for what he wanted.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

TVOR, you have got my respect.

Thanks, Huajiro. I'm just glad that there are standards low enough that I can get some respect - from anybody.

TVOR

 

[robtex]

I am American and I meet Americans every day that I do not like...if you want me to elaborate, I will tell you exactly why.

elaborate please.

 

[huajiro]

elaborate please.

When I say that "I am American and I meet Americans every day that I do not like...", I want you to know that I know that not only Americans display these traits, my comment was just directed at Americans as we were the subject of the previous post.

I live in Southern California and many people here have characteristics that I cannot tolerate: materialism, selfishness, conceit, greed, arrogance, lack of manners, complete disdain for culture, ignorance, racism, etc, etc.

You can imagine how few friends I have, as I do not tolerate any of these characteristics.