IF Israel were around in WW2, and adolf attacked it and used the excuse he was protecting palestinians agaisnt jewish aggression, would you support it?

To be honest Trav, your question is poorly worded.

When you say support "it"...is the "it" Hitler's aggression, or the state of Israel?

hitlers aggression, sorry

I doubt you'll find anyone who would support Hitler in any way, hindsight being what it is...what point are you trying to make?

IF Israel were around in WW2, and adolf attacked it and used the excuse he was protecting palestinians agaisnt jewish aggression, would you support it?


This whole idea doesn't make any sense. Israel was created because of WW2.

If Israel was in existence during WW2 there'd have been no Holocost,well not of Jews anyway,and the world would be a different place.

IF Israel were around in WW2, and adolf attacked it and used the excuse he was protecting palestinians agaisnt jewish aggression, would you support it?


IF Dubba-ya, adolf's evil twin, attacked a country and took control of its oil and in the process killed 100,000 innocent people using the excuse he was "spreading democracy" and "protecting" the people there, would you support it?

I have no doubt that you would.

IF Dubba-ya, adolf's evil twin
So President Bush is now Hitler's "evil twin", that is a stretch of comical proportions, even for you. :p

So President Bush is now Hitler's "evil twin", that is a stretch of comical proportions, even for you. :p

He did not name Hitler, and I did not name pResident Bush. :cool:

Oh....and the *evil twin* thing was said in jest.

Still though, it would be interesting to hear the Reichties here answer the following (NON-joking) hypothetical;

If the political faction that you favor attacked --unprovoked-- a country and took control of its oil and in the process killed some tens of thousands of innocent people using the flimsy excuse that they were "spreading democracy" and "protecting" the people there, would you still support them?

We DO know that for around 57 million Americans, the answer (sickeningly) is ---"Yes".

Oh....and the *evil twin* thing was said in jest.
I am aware of that.

If the political faction that you favor attacked --unprovoked-- a country and took control of its oil and in the process killed some tens of thousands of innocent people using the flimsy excuse that they were "spreading democracy" and "protecting" the people there, would you still support them?

We DO know that for around 57 million Americans, the answer (sickeningly) is ---"Yes".
Actually, since it is phrased in that manner and not aligned with the reality of what happened with the Iraq invasion, (the reasoning was the mildly convincing "weapons of mass destruction" excuse, we have yet to take control of Iraq's oil stores, democracy is spreading in Iraq, and the number of civilians dead hasn't been officially nailed down, to my knowledge) I doubt you'd get such a number.

Actually, since it is phrased in that manner and not aligned with the reality of what happened with the Iraq invasion, (the reasoning was the mildly convincing "weapons of mass destruction" excuse, we have yet to take control of Iraq's oil stores, democracy is spreading in Iraq, and the number of civilians dead hasn't been officially nailed down, to my knowledge) I doubt you'd get such a number.

a) It was not even MILDLY convincing to anyone who wasn't WANTING an excuse for war. Just look at the fact that, looking back now, virtually every person who then was screeching "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!! TONS AND TONS OF THEM!!" has admitted that the claims were baseless.

b) if the US is not controling the flow of oil, it is not from lack of trying

c) even if it is true that "democracy is spreading in Iraq", it does not negate what I said. The 'spread of democracy' was entirely ancillary to the Bushista's reasons for wanting to go to war against Iraq.

d) there are very credible estimates of the number of civilian dead in Iraq. The estimates range between 30,000 and 100,000.

a) It was not even MILDLY convincing to anyone who wasn't WANTING an excuse for war. Just look at the fact that, looking back now, virtually every person who then was screeching "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!! TONS AND TONS OF THEM!!" has admitted that the claims were baseless.
If it wasn't "mildly convincing", then we wouldn't have gone in. It takes some persuasion to get Congress and the nation to go along with it, but the sentiment has since changed. (obviously)

d) there are very credible estimates of the number of civilian dead in Iraq. The estimates range between 30,000 and 100,000.
Tell me, why do you pick the highest estimation of civilian deaths when we talk about the Iraq War?

It takes some persuasion to get Congress and the nation to go along with it, but the sentiment has since changed. (obviously)

It didn't take any persuasion, because the greedy republicans controlled and still do, at least until November, both houses in Congress. And the promissed piece of the gains was there for all of them...