By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zucas on 19 February 2010
Edit Thread
Sqrl said:
Zucas said:
quigontcb said:
Zucas said:

This is a rather good point.  War would be the best thing for Iran and better yet an invasion.  Would really help the current government stay in power.  Best way to shut up disillusioned people is make them pretend they are part of something bigger than themselves.  Hell Hitler did a pretty good job of it and the last adiminastration did a hell of a good job with 9/11.  I guess with Iran it's how are they going to get someone to attack them first. 

The only bad thing about this, is this will continually start polarizing the world in similar ways that happened in the Cold War which is probably the cause of a lot of this.  Despite the horror that this will probably cause, will be very interesting to see how it unfolds.  Just amazing that we can sit over here and talk about the exact ploys these countries use and yet no one catches on. 

Comparing Bush to Hitler and saying American's are foolish enough to buy into a quasi-Hitler leader and quasi-nazi mentality...ah well, it's 2010 and kids can sit behind a keyboard and say childish things all day with no accountability, and without having to stand face to face with someone and insult them openly.

Buddy I'd not only say everything that needs to be said to your face, I'd record every last bit of it and hand it right ovedr to you so you could remember it forever.  But the question is, what would you do about it.  Easy to sit behind a keyboard and act like you give a damn, but do you actually. 

Hitler and Bush are nothing alike as people but they did use similar tactics that many politicans have used.  But that you have the nerve to Straw Man my argument like you are some tough guy is rather silly.  That was an insult to the people and the masses as they can be so blindly lead by their political leaders to do whatever they tell them to do.  Whether it be Hitler using loads of things to rally his people from a depression into a nationalist mindset or the American government being able to successfully rally a group of people after a tragic and cheap attack from an underground organization into thinking so rationally.  If you don't like what I jsut said right there, then I suggest you take it up with Mr. James Madison who first wrote about the problems of the violence of factions for those exact same scenarios that played out.  There's a reason this nation tried to be setup to remove public opinion from decision making, but we didn't do a good enough job it seems.  I don't know if you blame them or the public for not taking a stand against it.

First, you both should really cool off a bit with the rhetoric. 

Second, for Zucas (but a point that I think everyone should keep in mind), ignoring the merits of your argument, you really should consider that comparing someone to Hitler, no matter how reasoned, is likely to elicit strong replies.  This is perfectly fine (provided other forum rules are followed) in a thread where this is the topic but in threads where it isn't the topic the rule of 'the most heated debate tends to hijack the discussion' will almost always come into play.  In short, think a bit about how your comment will effect the thread before posting Hitler comparisons please! It's a touchy subject for people no matter how you approach it, so when you do, it really should be a crucial part of your point rather than an example of your point.  I can promise you that a comment with a hitler comparison is a lot more likely to get into trouble by the mods than the same comment without that comparison.  That's just plain good advice everyone should consider.

For now I can see where you're coming from but since your point can stand up without the comparison I think we should move forward with the discussion minus the hitler comparison. Which brings me to.....

Third, lets try to keep this a friendly(or at least civil) discussion/debate focused on Iran. 

 

Well I do thank for the advice, I also hope along with a civil debate we can have an intellectual one too.  That's all I ask for as well.  Now maybe I devoided the eomtion factor a little too much because due to my field of study, I'm used to talking about all this from a non-biased perspective, something I know most don't do on a daily basis.  I'm not purposely trying to offend anyone with it, but give a pretty valid comparison that helped to confirm Rath's point of potential ways of how public opinion can be manipulated to support a political agenda they may not morally agree with.