Quote:
Originally posted by CDSmith
The USA doesn't invade and conquer, so comparing them to Hitler is the actual nonsense here. The only person remotely comparable to Hitler is Saddam himself.
Squawk all you want, it's going to happen regardless. The Iraqi dictatorship will fall, Saddam will be dealt with, the country will be rebuilt, and it will become a better place for it's citizens to live in. The USA will not retain ownership of the country, but will certainly monitor it's well-being.
Hitler raped, used and devastated the countries he conquered, where exactly do you see a parallel to the US here guttersnipe?
|
lol, I see my comments flew right over your head.
Lets try it again. My argument was not that Bush is like Hitler. My point what that YOUR argument could be used to exempt ANY LEADER from criticism, therefore it is invalid.
Essentially you are a hypocrite. You want to ascribe to Bush all this secret knowledge and insider information -- information you have not the slightest clue he actually has -- and that is all well and good, but what happens when you want to criticze some leader and someone else uses your own argument against you?
You'll either have to falsify your own argument (the hypocrisy part), or admit that no one.. including yourself.. is able to criticise any leader, because there is always the possibility that said leaders apparently irrational, cruel actions are really quite rational in light of the "secret information" he posesses.
Hence, as I said before, if you were alive in early 1940's Germany you could have used the same argument to defend Hitler. Or Stalin. Or any other despot.