I am saying he is the closest thing but I don't think he is that anything close to Hitler at this point. Can you point out another current world leader who is worse than Bush? Thx
You rattle off every world leader and I'll tell you which one is closer. If you can't rattle off every one of them then it was an un-informed statement based on your own extreme distaste for the man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Current_national_leaders Ok. Tell me which one is worse than GW Bush.
I'm assuming that means you don't know them all. But let's see here... The Iranian president (and the religious fanatics that pull his strings) deny the existence of homosexuals in their country while promoting a government that non-supporters claim persecutes them and kills them. African countries are torn apart by civil wars, rapes, mutilation, etc. North Korea is run as a strict military dictatorship. The Russian president has eroded democracy and violated human rights and attack his own civilians. That's just a few. But the main point is that you compared Bush to Hitler which is a ridiculous claim. Bush is nothing like Hitler. He isn't advocating the imprisonment and execution of an entire race. He isn't pushing for world domination. He hasn't assumed irrevocable powers. He hasn't forced military service on his population. He hasn't disbanded opposition parties. Etc, etc.
Well, it was New Yorker who baited me first by naming Hitler. Anyway, none of the leaders you mentioned caused the death of over 500k people as a result of their decisions. Therefore I don't think they are worse.
That wasn't my point. I don't think the argument can be made that it's a more peaceful nation, even with these "numbers" that were reported. My point was that progress was to mean that the Iraqi government could take care of themselves. There is clearly no progress there. All those numbers tell me is that less people died during the 1st half of Ramadan.
Kim Jong-il would be a good place to start. Omar al-Bashir, Than Shwe, Robert Mugabe...there is a long list. And where do you get 500k? That's hardly accurate as is your claim of causation.
You could add Ismail Enver, Benito Mussolini, Yakubu Gowon, Mao Tse-tung, Kim II-sung, Kim Jong II, Joseph Stalin, Charles Taylor, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hideki Tojo, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic as former world leaders who are light years ahead of Bush in terms of being a bad world leader. As HayesStreet said the list is surprisingly (for some) quite long once you start looking at it.
You can't list that many people because I was talking about current world leaders. There are only about 200 of them right now.
An article in Lancet estimated that 650k more Iraqis perished than would have been without war. This doesn't include close to 5k coalition dead (contractors included) and deaths in Afghanistan or small wars in Sudan, Haiti, etc. I don't think I read anything about that many deaths caused by the decisions of Kim Jong-il. Omar al-Bashir, Than Shwe and Robert Mugabe. But you can enlighten me.
The Lancet figure has been thoroughly debunked. Further, you seem to equate the intervention in Afghanistan with something Hitler would have done - please explain. You're asking for the rope, so I'll give you a few feet. If that isn't enough to chew on the you can continue with an explanation of what you mean by 'small wars in Sudan, Haiti etc.
You should keep up Hayes. The Lancet study has been confirmed. http://www.iraqanalysis.org/mortality/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
Nice spin work there. You are learning much from T_J. Let's see what the numbers are in November when there is a full month that doesn't include Ramadan. If the numbers are still down and dropping, I'll say that progress has been made. However, the government is still as unstable as ever and that is the ultimate goal.
ok, so you are saying it's a wait and see - then you support leaving troops in there to see if this is an actual trend. I think we agree.
The purpose of invading Afghanistan is to capture bin Laden. He is now in Pakistan. Why are we still there? Our presence there caused civilian deaths as well though nowhere near the scale of Iraq. Shouldn't we put these civilian deaths to Bush's account?
Not Really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War The number of death certificates that they claim should exist are 10 times what has been issued. To reproduce the Lancet study in the US, take a violent death survey of people who live in the 5th Ward and extrapolate it to the entire country. The Lancet survey has claimed that Iraqi deaths have averaged over 400 per day. That's virtually impossible, and discarded by virtually everyone else who has made an attempt at the same project. Remember, this is the same organization who, in 2004, published an estimate of 98,000 deaths with a 95% confidence interval of 192,000. But really, quoting the Lancet survey does more harm than good, because it's so horribly wrong. Let's say that the body count number is 150,000 (likely) or even 200,000 (possible), and like most counts, the US forces are responsible for 1/4 - 1/3 of that. (I'm just using my best memory of UN count, I couldn't find one easily.) That's still a horrible war, and a huge mistake. This war doesn't need sensationalizing. It looks bad using traditional, verified research.
