WAR: UK and US Leaders Acted Like Nazi War Criminals

Ritter may be stretching the truth a little in comparing bush and blair to hitler and the nazi's, the one thing that could be said about them was they had vision, an evil twisted vision but that is still something bush and blair sorely lack....but after 10 years of crippling scantions Iraq wasn't even a threat to its neighbors anymore, and they knew it muchless to us and bush wanted to go to war so bad he didn't need vigara to get all worked up...they trumped up charges they knew to be false, let the inspectors go in under duress and then dissed them the entire time they were there and never gave them a chance to prove or disprove the charges and bush knew it...to go to war unprovoked is a war crime and it certianly fits what bush and blair did...on trumped up and falsified charges is also criminal and the same thing the nazi did to the checoslovacians and austria and the poles so while the metaphor may be a bit extreme, it is true none the less .

Originally posted by Jehosephat
So giving Saddam WMDs back in the 80s, and aiding Arab Rebels in Afrganistan so they could fight agaisnt the Soviets, and giving millions of dollars of Military Aid to Isreal was "turning a blind eye to the middle east"?

I understand where you are comming fromm but what we did in the past was very important to the future of democracy.
If not for our ill informed intervention in afganistan in the 70's the Soviets would have had access to the indian ocean and also spread their influence in a large part of asia. We would have had to forsake that region if the soviets had gained afganistan and also it was impossible to say that these bunch of rebels fighting in Afganistan would one day be the epicenter of such a terrible organization.
Another point on Israel, if we hadnt helped Israel, the Soviets again would have had a go at that area making it into a bloody mess that we cannot even begin to imagine, atleast under American funding we can say what happens and maintain some control. If the soviets had supported Israel then again this would give then access to the Suez canal which would be a monumental loss.

What happened then could not have happened other wise but the importance is on what happens now!

Originally posted by Lysergic
But I am with you on religious extremist, OF all faiths need to be purged.

I find it strange that you agree with the comparison of Bush and Blair being like Nazi war criminals or simply as Nazis, and yet ironically, you agree with measures associated with Nazism itself.
How so?
Take the mention quoted above and replace "religious extremist" and "of all faiths" with Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.

Furthermore, considering the source, John "I am a pediphile who hangs at Burger King and I was on Saddam's payroll" Ritter, his categorizing of Bush and Blair as Nazis has no merit or validity.




seekerof

Originally posted by Lysergic

Did they hide this awesome army along with their wmd just to give us a good mindfornication?

They couldn't even hide one dude. Saddam was found in his little hole and yet our best guys can't find the most dangerous WMD. I suppose they hid them in Syria or Iran. We'd better go there and find them, eh? But let's forget N. Korea who we know has nukes and a little nut in charge.

What the apologists for this maniac we have in the Oval Office fail to understand is that Dubya has a direct link to the Almighty. He was told (so he claims) to invade both Afg. and Iraq by the Big Guy. Now I don't know about you but that's just a little bit frightening to me to have him with his thumb on the Big Red Button while he's being directed by voices in his head.

Forget everything else. The bottom line is that this guy is whacked. These people are motivated to advance to Armageddon in order to bring about the Second Coming. We have a fanatical religious oligarchy in control and there is NOTHING we can do about it because they control (1) the press, (2) the military, and (3) the voting booth. Our dialogue is essentially a waste of time but what the heck, maybe those who survive this age will learn from our discussions.

Originally posted by Seekerof

I find it strange that you agree with the comparison of Bush and Blair being like Nazi war criminals or simply as Nazis, and yet ironically, you agree with measures associated with Nazism itself.
How so?

Religious Extremist? Thats all you got lol? Yeah lets confuse religious extremist with entire race of people.
lets do that.

Take the mention quoted above and replace "religious extremist" and "of all faiths" with Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.

Why do that? when it wouldn't be what I was saying yo?

Furthermore, considering the source, John "I am a pediphile who hangs at Burger King and I was on Saddam's payroll" Ritter, his categorizing of Bush and Blair as Nazis has no merit or validity.
seekerof

oh it doesn't? he just saying the obvious really so I mean, and I'm not here to defend the pedophile however, there are some nazi like actions and mannerisms of our govt, I am not trying to compare it to the holocaust.

But look at the other things the nazis did, reichstag attack as I pointed out, and also they attacked poland under false pretense as well, do I really need to point it all out? or did you vote for Bush?














seattlelaw

I totally agree.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Lysergic]

The Telegraph used to be one of the most reputable papers in the UK and I have yet to see anyone say this status has changed.

Considering documents in National Archives prove Bush and Walker families helped subsidize the Nazis even after Pearl Harbor and the current Bush and cronies deliberately undertook a massive campaign to misinform, exaggerate and mislead the public to wage war on Iraq, it shows nothing has really changed in regards to the Bushes war profiteering and fascism ideology.

Ritter's dropped sex charges and links to al-Khafaji, that the FBI and US Treasury looked into, sounds more like a smear campaign in an attempt to try to discredit someone who didn't want to play the "screw the UN and let's steal the oil" game.

Bush has stated he'd prefer to be a dictator at least three times, so how many more clues do we need?



"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
~ G.W. Bush



[edit on 10-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Furthermore, considering the source, John "I am a pediphile who hangs at Burger King and I was on Saddam's payroll" Ritter, his categorizing of Bush and Blair as Nazis has no merit or validity.

seekerof

if ritter is a CONIVCTED pedophile, it is fair to label him suchly.
was he convicted of pedophilia, or is he innocent of pedophilia?

anybody can be ACCUSED of something. it is called 'character assasination'. check out this link for some historical context, www.warblogging.com...

i don't think bush is acting like a NAZI. he belongs to a whole new class of fascist.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by billybob]

Originally posted by Lysergic
Religious Extremist? Thats all you got lol? Yeah lets confuse religious extremist with entire race of people. lets do that.

I figured you would respond with such.
Yeah, "lets do that".....
Tell you what, how about you educate us as to how many MILLIONS of those "religious extremists" you wish to purge, k? Yeah, thats right: millions! And since we are talking millions Lysergic, does it matter if it is a race of people or those extremists being purged? Millions are millions, correct? The difference is sum total, not classification [ie: race, creed, color, category, etc.].

oh it doesn't? he just saying the obvious really so I mean...

Umm, no he is not.
In my book, along with many others, Scott Ritter is simply talking out his rear. You know, kind of like Cindy Sheehan, etc. when making such liberating and carefree historical comparisons? How easy it is today to label or proclaim someone or something as "Nazi" or having Nazi "mannerisms" and/or characteristics. Everytime someone asserts, claims, or describes something as "Nazi," the IQ of the topic drops by 50+ points. Simply ludicrous.

But look at the other things the nazis did, reichstag attack as I pointed out, and also they attacked poland under false pretense as well, do I really need to point it all out? or did you vote for Bush?

My voting preferences are irrelevant.
What is relevant is your misuse of historical comparisons.
The German Reichstagg was the seat of political power in Germany, making your comparison to the Twin Towers ludicrous and historically invalid.
Was the Twin Towers the seat of political power in the US?
The Reichstagg would equate to the Capital building, etc., not the Twin Towers. :shk:





seekerof

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Hey if our govt is supporting a war against islamic extremist, THEN WHY NOT?


and I knew you'd reply the exact way you did, seriously. it must feel great to wake up to your world.

Go ahead and use your attempt at wit and a 50 IQ pt deduction, I guess I'll just have to leave this discussion to the open minded greatest that is you.

Hmm, yeah lets forget why they were destroyed, but wha'evah floats your goat I guess. Cheney 08? kthx.



[edit on 10-10-2005 by Lysergic]

People can't seem to see the fundamental commonality between Ritter's proposition and instead use ad hominem remarks to detract his statement, as was dictated by Seekerof -- this does not demerit his remark in any way, it just illustrates a very child like mentality to state that the man hangs around at Burger King, ergo, he must obviously be wrong.

This war may not have the same ramnifications physicaly as have the wars spured by the Nazi War Criminals, but the initial mannerisms that started them are perfunctory, and this is the principle argument at hand; not wether or not a pedophile is to be trusted.

There are some very important comments stated by the man whose sole job was to assertain wether or not Iraq had a WMD programe:

"Mr Ritter told how he delivered a report in 1992 stating that Iraq's missile programme had been eliminated. But, he said, the news was met with "stony silence" and he was told that Iraq still possessed 200 missiles."

"Ninety percent of the time or more we received full co-operation of the Iraqi government."

Two very strong justifications for war which were wholly disregarded; the consequences are been seen today.

And, as for the religious extremism; you can't quiten this by waging war on a country over reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with extremism on it's agenda. The war was initialy caused to render Saddam militarily impotent, not to chide the one million religious extremists set ready to destroy our beloved life style in the west..

Luxifero

Originally posted by Seekerof

In my book, along with many others, Scott Ritter is simply talking out his rear.

So you're admitting it's your opinion? Not fact? Something you seem to have NO problem throwing at other members.

But look at the other things the nazis did, reichstag attack as I pointed out, and also they attacked poland under false pretense as well, do I really need to point it all out? or did you vote for Bush?

My voting preferences are irrelevant.
What is relevant is your misuse of historical comparisons.
The German Reichstagg was the seat of political power in Germany, making your comparison to the Twin Towers ludicrous and historically invalid.
Was the Twin Towers the seat of political power in the US?
The Reichstagg would equate to the Capital building, etc., not the Twin Towers. :shk:

Now you're just splitting hairs. Seat of political power? Some could make a statement for that, with all the money that ran through that building. In a Capitalist nation. Again,

Did they also not target the Pentagon? Seat of the Military(Power) base of the States?


Your point?

Ad Hominem?
You mean like your use of such fallacies, Luxifero?
For the sake of humor, Scott Ritters credibility is a joke.
You point out things that he has said that should be considered, having merit, and validity.

Are you picking and choosing what you want to take this man's word for, or what?
Was he not the same man who predicted that Bush would invade Iran in June of this year?
More inconsistancies can be pointed out.
You want to selectively take his word for gospel, then by all means, please do. I certainly will not buy into his garbage, simple as that.

Labeling something or someone as Nazi criminals is oh so original this day and time. Ritters use is no different. Again, bringing up Nazi comparisons todays are so degenerating and pointless, that its like tapping someone on the shoulder and yelling "Your it!" When all logic fails, simply spout or use the "Nazi" label. :shk:






seekerof

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
When all logic fails, simply spout or use the "Nazi" label. :shk:

I fail to see where MY logic failed. But unanswered.

I'm going to second Intrepids stance; exactly where did my logic fail. Simply pointing it out does not add anything productive to debate.

Luxifero

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Luxifero]

Using the nazi defence card is so 1999.

Shoe fits.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Was he not the same man who predicted that Bush would invade Iran in June of this year?

Do you have an example of your infallible predictions of future events or are you just going to insinuate Ritter's the only one with a broken crystal ball, and your opinion is more credible than his. Your making the assumption that battle plans are set in stone and timelines never change.

So your point was Ritter isn't a clairvoyent prophet...righttttt.

Is time running out for Iran?

John T. Flynn"s, the hallmarks of fascism:

1) unrestrained government;
2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party;
3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production;
4) bureaucracy and administrative "law";
5) state control of the financial sector;
6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending;
7) militarism, and
8) imperialism

‘Fascism’: Déjà Vu All Over Again

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

No, I pointed out exactly what I needed to indicate that you as with others will believe anything and everything that fits your views of Bush, Blair, the US, the UK, the Iraq War, etc., including believing each and everything that spews from the mouth of Scott Ritter, all despite the inaccuracies he has uttered.

That is what typifies flawed logic, indeed.







seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
No, I pointed out exactly what I needed to indicate that you as with others will believe anything and everything that fits your views of Bush, Blair, the US, the UK, the Iraq War, etc., including believing each and everything that spews from the mouth of Scott Ritter, all despite the inaccuracies he has uttered.

That is what typifies flawed logic, indeed

.

Again I quote, these aren't MY words:

Originally posted by Seekerof

In my book, along with many others, Scott Ritter is simply talking out his rear.

You seem to be having a problem dealing with this arguement, can't Google a response?




[edit on 10-10-2005 by intrepid]

Originally posted by Seekerof
No, I pointed out exactly what I needed to indicate that you as with others will believe anything and everything that fits your views of Bush, Blair, the US, the UK, the Iraq War, etc., including believing each and everything that spews from the mouth of Scott Ritter, all despite the inaccuracies he has uttered.

That is what typifies flawed logic, indeed.

No, you have demeaned members and haved failed to give anyone an ounce of credit in the ability to disseminate if what Ritter says is factual or not, and when their diatribe doesn't fit into your subjective semantical ideas you fly into a tantrum.

You choose to dismiss all Ritter's claims even though he's been right quite a few times. So blame yourself for having a bone of contention and unable to find a central focal point. You have blindsided yourself to only one way, yours...and since your not infallible either, your apt to be wrong many more times.

No one here has forced you to throw the baby out with the bathwater and go full tilt to the opposite side, you did that all by yourself and don't even try to claim that as logical.

Has anyone read up on the Nuremberg trials? The scary thing is , alot of the points made 66 years ago , can be applied now - and the same people who where convicted where shot for there crimes (or jailed for life).

Read the transcripts of the trials , then transpose them to modern day - then be scarred.


A good friend of mine , this very day , has said , when will jackboots be standard unifom for the DoHD - the people of the usa have less rights now than the germans did before WW2 (circa 1934 > 36 was the time frame he said).

Worrying times indeed.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Harlequin]