If we're talking about Bush's "despicable crimes" I think even he has some way to go to catch up with Hitler. His body count probably doesn't quite match Hitler's. Though you have to admire the fact that he gave it a pretty good try.
Yeah, those gas chambers didn't quite get finished before Obama came into power. I bet Bush is kept up late thinking: "six more months and I could have finished off another 4 million. Darn."
:smilielol5: It probably wouldn't be that hard to compile a chart of the world leaders responsible for the most deaths over the course of history; those who died as a result of the wars they started, those killed by their regimes at home ... I'm betting Bush may make the top ten...
Maybe you could give it a go. I'd say perhaps No. 9. if we kept it to the 20-21st century. But, after No. 3 there is a major fucking drop off...as Bill hicks might say.
I made the comparison based on the fact they both invaded and destroyed countries. They were not attacked, they were not even threatened. I suspect Bush attacked to gain precious oil reserves and im sure Hitler attacked on some egotistical power trip but the reasons are not what I am comparing, just the act of attack. I think its a fair comparison, obviously as that is what I posted.
that i know for fact is bollocks. the Iraqi army are working with our armed forces and are being trained to keep there country stable once our troops withdraw later this year. the goverment have requested for some 200 troops to stay in Iraq for longer to help the iraqi people, army and goverment in the initial stages of regaining stablised control of the country. not something the goverment would ask for if them and there people thought of our troops as there enemys. there are a few groups of people within iraq that no doubt want out troops gone, but that is only to an reintroduce terroist activity that our troops have now got under control. the majority of the people there are happy to now have a stablising of there country.
Fair enough. The rationalisation of both wars was completely different. And one did rebuild that which they destroyed. Trained indigenous troops to defend themselves and returned sovereignty (along with a myriad of other things). But, fair enough, chap. Fair enough.
In all fairness to Hitler, he wasn't really given a chance to rebuild the countries he destroyed. I'm sure he had every intention of making good his newly conquered lands as the glorious new Reich, once he'd solved the Jew problem
The government and military of a country is not the same thing as the population of a country, and does not necessarily represent the same interests and concerns. In the case of Iraq it's questionable how much legitimacy the government and military truly have in the view of the wider population, being so heavily representative of and supported by US interests. This has been one of the continuing exacerbating factors in the ongoing violence since 2003.
well if the rest of the country wanted them out there would be a lot more terrorist influence surely, and these groups would be getting stronger and more powerful as resentment sets in that we are still there? this isnt the case, as the country has now stablised and there are hardly any attacks in Iraq anymore surely that demonstrates the majoritys consensus that we are not the enemy as they are no longer bombing us every 30 seconds and are happy to let us work with them and troops can patrol in the towns of iraq and chat with iraqi civilians without reprisals from anyone.....hence there is hardly anymore ongoing violence that you speak of. It's afghanistan where we are most certainly still not welcome not Iraq i would say. and Odon....my timing is always impecable