It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by junglejake
And when the Nazis were trying to get a foothold in the German democracy in the 20s, Germany saw them as a fringe group. In order to become more electable, they quit talking about what their platform was, what they believed in, what they would do for Germany and instead put out an all out offensive against everything the current party in power was doing. Controllable or not, the Nazis blamed the folks in power. They also were the first political group ever to campaign all the time instead of just during election years, spreading anger towards the current party in power.
That sounds like the Democratic Party right now. You know, you can take any awful group that was very effective in other rights and apply some principle they had to a currently effective group. The Democrats and the Nazis have similar campaign strategies. Does that mean the Democrats want to kill all Jews? Nooo...It means that that is an effective campaign strategy. If a group that 97% of the population of Germany though was full of crackpots can gain 33% of the government via elections in just 4 years of negative campaigning, imagine what a less-fringe group like the Democrats can do.
America has been in the spreading democracy business for a lot longer than Bush. Your contention seems to be that by America...I'm sorry, Bush wanting to give Iraqis the liberty to choose their own government, as we have done with Afghanistan, Japan, and Germany effectively, means Bush wants a holocaust? Like I said earlier, you can talk about similarities with psychotic governments, then apply the psychotic aspects to group you don't like.
You're saying Republicans are responsible for this whole idea, just as Hitler blamed the Jews for everything that was wrong with Germany. We can only assume you want to start concentration camps and start killing all Republicans too weak to be useful, and put the others to work as slave labor.
See how easy that is?
Originally posted by covertoperative
When the Nazis decided to take over other countries for more control, it was also to push their government onto others.
By forcing it on them, and forcing Europe to be under his control. It wasn't the government style he wanted to expand, it was Germany.
Hitler felt that his theories and ways of life were ideal, and that everyone else should live by them. He did this very successfully, however not for a very long time.
Right there is an assumption. First, you assert that the reason Hitler was so evil, as, according to you, everyone knows, is because he wanted to impose his ideal government on the world. This is factually incorrect for many reasons. First, Hitler's goal was not the world at the time of WWII, it was Europe. He had a vision of 5 superpowers throughout the world, though he suspected the US would collapse because we gave too much power to other races. He did not think England would even enter the war when he invaded Poland. Personally, my biggest problem with Hitler was his systematic execution of so many people based on religion, race and politics. There have been many empires in world history, yet I don't hear people saying Charlemagne was evil, Napoleon was evil, etc. Hitler was responsible for the systematic execution of anyone not fit for slave labor. That's evil.
We all see this as a very immoral and wrong practice and idea. Everyone now sees Hitler as an evil man because of this.
And right here, you try to link imposing a government style to the systematic execution of many, many groups of people. You explained that Hitler was evil for wanting to spread what you called a form of government, though the reality of it was he wanted to expand Germany's borders, then say, as an afterthought, that the Holocaust was involved in this too, as though to imply that with the imposition of a government comes a Holocaust.
However, I am not naive enough not to realize the Holocaust as well.
This in itself made him evil, and he definitely wasn’t in his right mind to do this, however pushing his government ideals on others doesn’t sound so evil.....at least according to what our government is teaching us by example.
Maybe in out history books it should say that he was right with pushing his rule onto other countries, and that it would have been good if he succeeded, and just said the only bad thing he did was killing so many people.
The comparison here is a simple one. How is it that what our (definitely not leader) president is doing is "moral, and correct"?
He seems to have brainwashed republicans into the idea that us pushing OUR government onto Iraq was the correct thing to do, when it was wrong for Hitler to push his onto his surrounding countries.
I really don’t see any difference here. Bush thought that our government was better than Iraq's. I will also state another thing that I am not "poorly educated" in. I realize that Hussein was a very cruel leader and killed many of his own citizens....
but how does that give us the right to think that we should push our government onto them???
Controllable or not, the Nazis blamed the folks in power. They also were the first political group ever to campaign all the time instead of just during election years, spreading anger towards the current party in power.
That sounds like the Democratic Party right now.
-Fantasy by Jake
Originally posted by junglejake The author was comparing spreading democracy with the Nazi's attempted takeover of Europe. The author went further, insinuating America is perpetrating a holocaust by trying to put government control into the hands of the people.
Absolutely NOT what I'm saying. Im asking how there is a difference? How do we make it sound bad that the Nazis did it when we are doing the same thing now?
Originally posted by Bout Time
Jake, we are neither "spreading democracy" nor doing anything remotely resembling "putting government control in the hands of the people".
There is not now nor ever any primary intent to bring Democracy to Afganistan or Iraq.