Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The New Adolph Hitler !

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   


www.cnn.com...

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld compared Hugo Chavez to Adolf Hitler and warned darkly Thursday about populist leadership in Bolivia and Cuba.

"They are right to be worried, because they know what's happening here," Chavez said in a speech lasting more than 21/2 hours after accepting his prize.

"They will forever try to preserve the U.S. empire by all means, while we will do everything possible to shred it."


This populist leader was once a small farmer, and in the upcoming month's the USG is going to add him and his country to our list of "terrorist".

Does it bother any of you Americans that in the very near future the entire population of this country could be treated as terrorist by the rest of the world?
I mean, you don't honestly think we can put a 'tag' on everybody in the world who does not subscribe to THIS government and kill them do ya'?

But since it appears as tho' our government is going to try, ultimately, one side of the equasion must die.

All of the Egyptians had to suffer for Pharaoh's choices, what makes U.S. different?
Are you unable to recognize a 'spirit' that is more than willing to teach U.S. a lesson ?

HERE is an interview he recently had with Ted Coppel.

This man makes Donald Rumsfeld look like the pure spawn of Satan.

Are you ready to suffer for OUR Pharaoh's choices ?

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8/2/2006 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 9-2-2006 by John bull 1]




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I tend to look at all things that the U.S. media will actually divulge as being ramped up or proped up situations. Much like the CIA putting Saddam in power , I believe there's a great likelihood that Chavez is unknowingly another such character. Think about the stories which surfaced this past week on the desire to open trade with Cuba again in exchange for oil drilling rights. That along with Venezuela's production would create a new mammoth source of oil. Don't take anything from the American media at face value. Chavez will be a target, sooner rather than later.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
It's a bizarre comparison - especially considering who made it.

It seems part of an ongoing programme to discredit / demonise anyone who resists the US's way of doing things.

I don't know how it played in America but I suspect elsewhere people lost any of the respect they may have still had for the US Defense Secretary.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
I tend to look at all things that the U.S. media will actually divulge as being ramped up or proped up situations. Much like the CIA putting Saddam in power , I believe there's a great likelihood that Chavez is unknowingly another such character. Think about the stories which surfaced this past week on the desire to open trade with Cuba again in exchange for oil drilling rights. That along with Venezuela's production would create a new mammoth source of oil. Don't take anything from the American media at face value. Chavez will be a target, sooner rather than later.



You do know the CIA had nothing to do with Sadaam coming to power. Onto, Chavez, I honestly dont think Chavez will be a target. We all know Pat Robertson is a nut and part of the reason I left the sect of Christianity I was involved in. Now I'm Methodist. But anyhow does anyone think that maybe what Chavez has is simply a contingency plan. I mean these are updated all them time. Along with many other strategic plans, such as those for the Strategic Air Command. Theres no need to target Chavez, its easier to normalize relations than it is to invade Venezuela for oil, we already have their oil. Were already in the middle east and have the assets to conduct an air campaign against Iran, why move the assets to strike Venezuela?

Saddam's Rise to Power



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Luda, you're are trying to apply rational thought to this matter. You have to get well beyond that or you'll never see what is going on. You , like me just don't possess the kind of lust for money and power these poos do.

btw-Please tell me who put Saddam in power, I just dying to know!

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/2/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The CIA certainly did put Saddam in power!!

www.representativepress.org...



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Is it just me or do lines seem to be being drawn here e.g. north america ,china, russia ,austrailia, europe on the flip side asia ,africa ,south america I use these countries /continents in a general sense but is something unfolding in front of our eyes.

I am not relating to nwo here.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
"They will forever try to preserve the U.S. empire by all means, while we will do everything possible to shred it."


Did you read the story about where this man came from?

It won't be like Ray Nagin throwing a fit on the radio about 'this f'd up government' then wrapping his arms around the president when he showed up in N.O.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl
Is it just me or do lines seem to be being drawn here e.g. north america ,china, russia ,austrailia, europe on the flip side asia ,africa ,south america I use these countries /continents in a general sense but is something unfolding in front of our eyes.

I am not relating to nwo here.


I think this is the NWO, isn't it?

I think the line's being drawn but not as you see it - on one side we have US and its vassal states: UK, Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan, American colonies (S Korea, Phillipines etc) and to some extent Europe.

On the other there's the 'exploited nations' Middle East, S America, Africa, SE Asia, India, Pakistan

I see Russia and China sitting off to the side not knowing who to side with / not knowing if they want any part in it

(If I've understood your point)



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Yes strangerous that is my point ,although i seem to have got the dividing lines wrong ty for your insight



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
i think russia and china are vassel states in a sense also; but pretend to be "agianst usa" so there will appear to be a balance of power , which there is no real balance at all, its a trick

take that pill and call me in the morning



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I think you may be right, in time.



No-one, except those with nothing to lose, can afford to challenge America



For now Russia & China have advantages of resources and isolation which means they can sit to one side at the moment but it's certainly changing with every month.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
So much ignorence. So little Knowledge to go around.

Of course, The US news is only going to focus on either The Extreme positive\Negitive. That comes out from other Nations. (The rest is not news worthy.)

Chavez is "Not" the only leader in South America. But he is the most Vocal agianst the US. And guess who gets reported. (And then gets the backlash.)

Brazil has a marxist type leader, As well as uruguay\Bolivia. And you don't Hear much about them do you?

Also Remember the US tried to keep Chavez from being Elected. Along with Brazil, Uruguay, And Bolivia. (Which all now have leftist Governments.)

So they also have a "gripe" vrs the US. (and yet, You don't hear too much of it. Do you?)

(Note: South America is a Big Battleground between the USA's war of Drugs. And the Leftist Marxists supporters of the Drug regime's. Which are supported by Cuba and China as well. Its all about "power". Leftist Imperialism vrs US imperialism.)

Side Note:
And the ironic Thing is This. Cindy Sheehan would be killed if she "protested across from Chavez's Home."

And I Would rather live in the States and protest Bush. And Live. Then live under Chavez, And always fear for my life.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by msnevil
So much ignorence. So little Knowledge to go around.

Of course, The US news is only going to focus on either The Extreme positive\Negitive. That comes out from other Nations. (The rest is not news worthy.)

Chavez is "Not" the only leader in South America. But he is the most Vocal agianst the US. And guess who gets reported. (And then gets the backlash.)

Brazil has a marxist type leader, As well as uruguay\Bolivia. And you don't Hear much about them do you?


Sorry could you explain that - are you saying Chavez IS 'like Hitler' because he criticizes the US?

Do you have any links to Chavez's oppression of his own people / restriction of free speech?

I looked and this was what I found:



Chavez`s main successes have not been radical changes to the Economic or social situation here in Venezuela. One theme on which seemingly everyone can agree is the heightened level of public participation in the political processes of Venezuela. In every café, at every Metro station, in every street, you can hear people talking about the political situation in Venezuela. His other major changes include the introduction of "La Ley de Tierras," a liberal land reform law, and "La Ley de Pescas," a major change to the fishing regulations designed to prioritize small scale local fishing over large-scale industrial export fishing. Probably the most dramatic change has been the legalization of small independent television and radio stations, previously called "pirate" stations.

*SNIP*

The fact is that there a numerous complaints that can be made about Chavez's government, including the lack of backbone in terms of neoliberal reforms and the new trend in the government to make deals with the US government, including allowing the previously denied US drug overflights to Colombia. The biggest problem with the opposition movement is that the individual members have allowed the CD to become a monolithic anti-Chavez machine.

(my emphasis) - edited for brevity

From www.narconews.com... (visit for full story)

What evidence do you have that there's no free speech in Venezuela?



www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Mod Note: Surround your snippet and link to an external source with these new tags:
[ex] --> Begin external source content
[/ex] --> End external source content

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 8-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 8-2-2006 by Strangerous]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Thanks DTOM - I wondered how to do that!



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I live in South America
These are the facts:

These are the leaders the U.S and Europe should keep an eye on:
Chavez, Kirchner (Argentina), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Ullanta Uhmala (if he becomes president of Peru). Kirchner is specially dangerous, he is ideologically aligned with Chavez>Fidel>IRAN. Argentina has nuclear capabilities and is giving away nuclear secrets to IRAN via Chavez

Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay have moderate left goverments
These countries, especially Uruguay and Chile are NOT at all in good terms with Argentina's neo-left fascist "goverment".Fortunately Argentina has zero military capabilities. The Army has no material and has no respect or obedience to Kirchner

Chavez & Kirchner are the most dangerous lunatics here. They are
planning to make a gasoduct from Venezuela to Argentina, 6000 km or more!!



[edit on 9-2-2006 by Vladtepes]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Not that I'm a fan of Chavez but in his defense Rumsfeld calls the guy who gets his order wrong "the new hitler".

Everybody can't be the new hitler.

I think the man is dangerous, but hitler dangerous, I'm not sure, I have a theory in another thread.

I'll try and find it.

SPiderj



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Here's a linke to my latin america wwIII theory, if anybody is interested.

It's not long.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

SPiderj



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
The CIA certainly did put Saddam in power!!

www.representativepress.org...



Yeah that prooves it. You know the Ba'athist coup was peacful right. I'm sure there were some killings and murders but there was no civil war prior to it. The only reason the US welcomed it was because we were worried about Iran more than anything. And Saddam was willing to work with US and then went to war with Iran, and the US of course supported it. Big mistake as we know now. It was known at the time that he was a shady dude who had no problem killing(more or less known in the US as a psychopath, but one the US could use). The CIA had no need to help him come to power, he reached that on his own. He was a General in the Iraqi Military prior to obtaining power. He obviously had some clout in the political arena in Iraq. He was simply a lesser evil at the time.

Here is a history of US relations with Saddam. More of a what went wrong type of deal.
US relations with Saddam



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Yeah that's a good source you gave:

Rumsfeld was there spreading peace & goodwill nothing sinister there




No mention of the fact that after the previous failed coup attempt all the plotters were tortured and returned broken men - except Saddam who returned fit and healthy from Cairo (where he spent lots of time at the US Embassy being trained and groomed by CIA) confident he now had CIA backing.

www.hartford-hwp.com...

www.iranian.com...

coat.ncf.ca...

www.bopnews.com...

Do you really have no idea what is done in your name?

[edit on 9-2-2006 by Strangerous]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join