wow... killed my own thread...

God, the use of the term "New Hitler," is being so overused that it risks the chance of it losing all meaning. Hitler was the second most brutal dictator in the history of mankind, only surpassed by Stalin in sheer numbers of their victims. I can see how the term, the "New Castro," may apply here, but not a label of the "New Hitler."

Originally posted by sardion2000
God, the use of the term "New Hitler," is being so overused that it risks the chance of it losing all meaning.

That implies it hasn't already done so!

It might be used, but that term is thrown around so much it holds about as much weight (at least in my mind) as calling someone a dingus...i.e. very, very, very little.

russia and china are out of the question for dominating the world via war. but in the end, what would one have to do to beat them?
with the world on the verge of discovering cheap, nearly non-pollutable, and nearly endless supply of fuel... how would u win the war?

take the oil.

all i'm saying is, 100 years before the atom bomb, we rode horses. imagine what is coming in the years after the atom bomb.

WW3 will be violent, as predicted.
but as all people know, the only in the aftermath will we realize our mistakes.

Originally posted by chibidai_rrr
all i'm saying is, 100 years before the atom bomb, we rode horses.

Hmmh. A funny observation, but not entirely correct. Of course we rode horses, but we stil ride horses today. But today like then this is not our most advanced means of transportation. 100 years ago those were trains. But change the number in your post to 200 and you have me on your page!


But more on the topic, I don`t think that Morales is in a great danger of becoming another Boogeyman to the West. I`ve read some articles of leftist authors and they view him as a kittycat compared to Chavez so I guess he should be safe.

Originally posted by sardion2000
God, the use of the term "New Hitler," is being so overused that it risks the chance of it losing all meaning. Hitler was the second most brutal dictator in the history of mankind, only surpassed by Stalin in sheer numbers of their victims. I can see how the term, the "New Castro," may apply here, but not a label of the "New Hitler."

Stalin was the worst?

Guess you never heard about Mao. I thought some Jewish guys said Louis Farrahkan was the new Hitler...ok, it was black Hitler, but it's about the same.

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by sardion2000
God, the use of the term "New Hitler," is being so overused that it risks the chance of it losing all meaning. Hitler was the second most brutal dictator in the history of mankind, only surpassed by Stalin in sheer numbers of their victims. I can see how the term, the "New Castro," may apply here, but not a label of the "New Hitler."

Stalin was the worst?

Guess you never heard about Mao. I thought some Jewish guys said Louis Farrahkan was the new Hitler...ok, it was black Hitler, but it's about the same.

Don't know much about Mao and havn't seen enough evidence(nor the time nor inclination actually), okay how about worst in European History then?

[edit on 13-5-2006 by sardion2000]

As evil leaders go, at the moment there's Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir, Joseph Kabila, Islam Karimov and Saparmurat Niyazov to name but a few, yet hardly anyone even knows their names.

They are only brought forward to be vilified in the public consciousness if they affect our national interests.

Originally posted by chibidai_rrr

WW3 will be violent, as predicted.
but as all people know, the only in the aftermath will we realize our mistakes.

Just like we learned after WW1 and WW2? Third time lucky?

Originally posted by AJAG
Just like we learned after WW1 and WW2? Third time lucky?

very good point. we learn, things are ok for a few years, and then people start forgetting about how horrible war is. so they send the next generation to battle in order to secure the peace. then things are good for awhile and the cycle continues.

but dont start at ww1. if you go back to the beginning of recorded history, you will find that almost every civilization has had at least one major war during each generation. young men want to prove themselves and old men forget the horrors of war. its in the human genome. i just dont see any end in sight (short of the extinction of the human race).

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by AJAG
Just like we learned after WW1 and WW2? Third time lucky?

very good point. we learn, things are ok for a few years, and then people start forgetting about how horrible war is. so they send the next generation to battle in order to secure the peace. then things are good for awhile and the cycle continues.

but dont start at ww1. if you go back to the beginning of recorded history, you will find that almost every civilization has had at least one major war during each generation. young men want to prove themselves and old men forget the horrors of war. its in the human genome. i just dont see any end in sight (short of the extinction of the human race).

Oh yeah, completely agree, just started at WW1 just because I found it funny about learning from WW3 and wanted to be ironic about it.

You'd think they'd call them new stalin's and such no? Since they are leftists?

The Chavez-Morales axis, er, collaboration, seems to clearly be set up to create a 'counter' to US hegemony in latin america. Polarization could cause a problem.

There's still too many ex soviet dictators though Nygdan. That kinda spoils it for current propaganda purposes.