ClumsyMonkey.net

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040109/pl_afp/us_iraq_weapons_defense_040109212053

This one pissed me off. The fact is that this war in Iraq was completely unfounded. They've pretty well conceded that they will not find anything in Iraq, and the fact that they're just blowing this off should put the rest of the world in an uproar.

Any other country and this would not be tolerated and it really pisses me off that the Americans are getting away with this. This is no different then the Nazi invasions before WWII. Simply pathetic.

What a flattering "File Photo":

LMFAO

hahahhaha, ya really

and that article is definitely stupid.

yeah i was thinking to myself, do i really think anything comming from that mug as cerdible?

but yeah, this is making the reason for war look really bad. i, the war hawk that i am, acknowledge that.

J-Neli wrote:This is no different then the Nazi invasions before WWII.

The sad thing is that you probably believe that.

The even 'sadder' thing is that you don't.

nazi is a buzzword, people use nazi in argument and debate to associate pure evil to an act. it's no better then calling someone a boogerface in debate.

Nazi's were just that, Nazi's, there's not a sinlge comparable act to being a nazi then intentional genocide of innocent civilians with the intent to exstinguish said civilians.

J-Neli wrote:The even 'sadder' thing is that you don't.

ok wiseguy. Why don't you do yourself a favor. Research the Nazi regime and all of its actions. Do some research on the current situation in Iraq. Then, when you have a detailed and objective synopsis of each, do a side-by-side analysis and comparison and point out how the two are exactly the same. Otherwise... you might come off sounding stupid.

How easily forgotten David Kay's first weapons report is. It clearly states that Iraq had current weapons programs and was hiding tons of information and equipment from the UN. I encourage everyone to read Mr. Pearle's book, even if you don't think you agree with him. The information he puts out is amazing, and it comes complete with plenty of sources.

Bandalero wrote:nazi is a buzzword, people use nazi in argument and debate to associate pure evil to an act. it's no better then calling someone a boogerface in debate.

Nazi's were just that, Nazi's, there's not a sinlge comparable act to being a nazi then intentional genocide of innocent civilians with the intent to exstinguish said civilians.

I never said Bush was a Nazi. I said his invasion of Iraq was comparable to the Nazi invasions. Two very seperate things.

actually you said they were "no different", yet another thing entirely.

either way, never said he was a Nazi.

But i hardly think even the invasion of iraq is comparable. sure they have SIMILARITIES, but not comparable, i have to agree with Corey. Look at the facts, they are <i>very</i> different.

J-Neli wrote:either way, never said he was a Nazi.

Ok, My BS-O-Meter is going berserk. You clearly wanted to call the US Nazis. Why else make the distinction? You didn't say the invasions were "no different" than the British invasions of Africa, or even that they were "no different" than the GERMAN invasions pre WWII. No, you used the term Nazi. It's the easiest way to sensationalize an issue. Compare it to Nazism and/or Hitler. Way to go, you earn a gold star. How about arguing against an issue with reason and scenarios rather than just labeling it as something else? You can't just make such a sweeping statement without pointing out why. If I made a thread saying that Canada's economy is "no different" than Communist Russia, wouldn't you want me to back that up? Hey, and next time, stick to your guns. Don't make a statement and say that's not what you meant when clearly it is.