|
Post by -lewa- on Jun 11, 2006 17:10:49 GMT -5
Despite the nerdy title, this is somewhat of a serious topic. Several users here have signatures which include the time that I JOKINGLY said that Adolf Hitler was a great leader. Well, here;s one for the books: Adolf hitler anti-pwns. You can put that in your sig just because its so stupid. Come on, hitler was a bad guy. You hurst my feelings. Im a bad admin. Im weird. Your all insane. My left face itches. That didnt make sense. Im not using any punctuation marks. Im reambling on. This is cool.
|
|
|
Post by Peon on Jun 11, 2006 18:13:51 GMT -5
Actually, due to his warped sense of values, he was indeed trying to do good things for the world. He figured that his race was superior to all other races on earth, so the only logical step after that was to exterminate the inferior races. It's a similar situation to, oh, the SARS outbreak or something. You quarantine the "infected" people and let them waste away. Like it or not, Hitler was a fairly effective leader of his organization, and you've got to respect him for that. I think it's an admirable thing to say Hitler was a great leader.
|
|
|
Post by _glitch_ on Jun 11, 2006 21:29:10 GMT -5
I'd say that he had great leadership capabilities for sure. He took over half the world without even breaking a sweat.
He however was a <self censored>. I'm part Jewish though, so I'm biased. Hardcore.
_glitch_
|
|
|
Post by opinion on Jun 11, 2006 21:39:27 GMT -5
Lucifer is also a great leader.
|
|
|
Post by _glitch_ on Jun 11, 2006 21:45:55 GMT -5
Whoa... that was weird... some dude signs up, says that Lucifer is a great leader, then deletes his account.
Weird.
And no, Lucifer is not a great leader.
_glitch_
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on Jun 11, 2006 22:31:36 GMT -5
Lewa said that Hitler was a great leader in his forum game where you try to present something and be persuasive.
I responded by saying that even though Hitler was evil, that doesn't make him not a leader. Whenever someone has ideas and gets others to follow his example he is a LEADER.
That does not mean he's a good person. A bad person can be a leader.
So for Lewa if anybody else was acting silly by quoting you out of context and me too for that matter. Neither Lewa or I supported fascism by saying what we did say.
|
|
|
Post by im_an_alien on Jun 12, 2006 9:53:38 GMT -5
And also, lewa said (of coarse I don't belive that) or something after he said that
|
|
|
Post by Peon on Jun 12, 2006 11:40:07 GMT -5
I responded by saying that even though Hitler was evil, that doesn't make him not a leader. See, this is what I'm trying to say. All this "Hitler = bad" and "Hitler was evil" stuff all depends on the viewpoint. From most of the other countries in the world today, President Bush is also seen as evil. After all, taking over Iraq relatively unprovoked isn't much different from taking over Poland unprovoked. It's as if lewa and blastgirl, and probably most of the people at lewasite, have some kind of a line split at the middle where people on the left are "evil" and people on the right are "good". Not necessarily. It all depends on the particular morals of the society and where you're looking at the situation from.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Jun 12, 2006 14:05:00 GMT -5
I really don't have the time to get into this as much as I could. But Hitler's invasion of Poland was hardly the same thing as the War on terror.
Hitler's invasion of Poland was for control of all of Europe and an plan to wipe out the entire Polish population. He also intended to wipe out the Jewish population only because they were Jewish.
The War on terror has more phases than are usually being noticed. Hussein invaded qwait in 1990. At that time I was 19 years old and had conscription been imposed I would have been drafted but there was not a need because the President Bush the father of the now president Bush used activated reservists for the war to move Hussein's troops out of Qwair.
In 1991 Hussein and Iraq surrendered. A term of the surrender was that inspectors would be in Iraq and his nuclear program would stop. A few years later he tossed inspectors out and claimed that he was rebuilding his military. Appearently that was a bluff or his nuclear program was never what he claimed it was in the 1st place. But we know he gassed his own people while he also made some displays to make us think he could very well have much more to his collection.
On 9/11/01 America's New York was attacked by BinLaden and alQuida. I had to try to explain to a 4 year old what had happend.
That made the President and his staff feel that all known terrorists, especially 1 who violated terms of a treaty would need to be taken out of power.
So when you think about the history of events that took place over the course of a decade beforehand the war on terror going into Iraq should not seem as in invasion for 'no reason' even if you don't agree with the reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Peon on Jun 12, 2006 15:15:35 GMT -5
While I personally agree with you, the fact still stands that two-thirds of the United States do not approve of Bush's presidential actions, and based upon my experiences, most people from Canada and the UK feel the same way. From the viewpoint of al-Qaeda, and, to a lesser extent, those who oppose the war in general, we're the "evil" ones in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on Jun 12, 2006 21:50:39 GMT -5
Polls are shortlived and not very accurate.
The same polls doubted that Bush would be re-elected. However he not only got re-elected but he had the highest number of votes ever in a single election. (Not percentage but amount of total votes.)
So the statistic that really matters speaks differently from Gallup and AOL polls. Bush has not been right about absolutely everything but when you are strong and decisive, you tent to get more attention positive and negative then if take a quiet approach. But we do elect leaders to lead not necessarily go with the flow.
|
|
|
Post by Hatson on Jun 13, 2006 15:13:58 GMT -5
Here in Canada there are a lot of people mad at Bush for the war but not me so much.
I realize that we have a very small military and our being here depends on a stron United States.
Anytime a US president takes steps to keep America stronger Canada benefits.
As far as what's quoted somebody had some fun with my comment about eating sour balls too.
|
|
|
Post by roflstunts on Jun 15, 2006 17:27:05 GMT -5
The year is 1964. Both the U.S. and Soviet Union are tense, each holding and threatening the other with massive nuclear weapons. When a news about negotiations between the two is transmitted over the radio, American's in pubs across the country chant, "Kill a commie for mommy!" Anti-war propaganda is distributed by the counterculture "hippies" of the suburbs. And to think, the Russian governments were our allies 15 years ago. Ideals change along with the times. No different is this perspective from Middle Eastern countries, protesting the troops in Iraq. Like rooting for your favorite football team. I have rooted for the Eagles ever since I was 5. I rooted for them when they went to the super bowl, and I rooted for them when they lost all their chances with T.O.'s departure. But I still rooted. You will support your country just like your football team because it's the way you were raised. You did not grow speaking Spanish and saying your adjectives after your nouns. You say your adjectives before your nouns, the English way. When America wins a war, you root for them. When America invades a country, you root for them. You don't see it from the invadee's point of view. And that's what people need to start doing before trying to take over a nation, or fire a buckshot at your friend's face who you thought was a pheasant. The main problem with people is that they don't think outside the box. This is where we are now - This is where we should be -
|
|