Bush compares Bin Laden to Hitler

[Ban Hammer 12,903]

What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.

i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:

first use of chemical agents

first use of flame throwers

first use of tanks in battle

first mass use of airplanes

first war fought on 3 continents

and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.

i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:

first use of chemical agents

first use of flame throwers

first use of tanks in battle

first mass use of airplanes

first war fought on 3 continents

and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.

No disagreement there. The issue is whether the assassination of one man directly caused all that. A contributing factor to be sure - but far from the only one; and its significance is somewhat contentious.

[Ban Hammer 12,903]

What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.

i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:

first use of chemical agents

first use of flame throwers

first use of tanks in battle

first mass use of airplanes

first war fought on 3 continents

and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.

No disagreement there. The issue is whether the assassination of one man directly caused all that. A contributing factor to be sure - but far from the only one; and its significance is somewhat contentious.

it shows the dangers of having treaties all over the place and especially with a nation just itching for a reason to go to war.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.

i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:

first use of chemical agents

first use of flame throwers

first use of tanks in battle

first mass use of airplanes

first war fought on 3 continents

and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.

No disagreement there. The issue is whether the assassination of one man directly caused all that. A contributing factor to be sure - but far from the only one; and its significance is somewhat contentious.

it shows the dangers of having treaties all over the place and especially with a nation just itching for a reason to go to war.

First of, when I said that the assassination didn't cause the war or transform the world, I did not mean that the war itself didn't change the world. The assassination-explanation is very convenient because it totally overlooks the historical context, in the same way as 9/11 as an explanation for AMerican intervention in the middle east forgets that there is a context prior to that event.

Second, there wasn't a single nation not gung-ho for war (at least in Europe) and that has nothing to do with treaties and the like. Why else do you think are historians still concerned with the question whether it is actually possible to point to a single nation (or even group of nations) causing the war.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.

i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:

first use of chemical agents

first use of flame throwers

first use of tanks in battle

first mass use of airplanes

first war fought on 3 continents

and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.

No disagreement there. The issue is whether the assassination of one man directly caused all that. A contributing factor to be sure - but far from the only one; and its significance is somewhat contentious.

it shows the dangers of having treaties all over the place and especially with a nation just itching for a reason to go to war.

First of, when I said that the assassination didn't cause the war or transform the world, I did not mean that the war itself didn't change the world. The assassination-explanation is very convenient because it totally overlooks the historical context, in the same way as 9/11 as an explanation for AMerican intervention in the middle east forgets that there is a context prior to that event.

Second, there wasn't a single nation not gung-ho for war (at least in Europe) and that has nothing to do with treaties and the like. Why else do you think are historians still concerned with the question whether it is actually possible to point to a single nation (or even group of nations) causing the war.

Not to mention that collectively speaking, people have short memories and its easy to exaggerate the causative pressure of a particular event, rather than consider all the historical permutations surrounding it. Incidentally, which is exactly Bush was doing when making Lenin out to be some sort of "architect of evil".

[Ban Hammer 12,903]

What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.

i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:

first use of chemical agents

first use of flame throwers

first use of tanks in battle

first mass use of airplanes

first war fought on 3 continents

and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.

No disagreement there. The issue is whether the assassination of one man directly caused all that. A contributing factor to be sure - but far from the only one; and its significance is somewhat contentious.

it shows the dangers of having treaties all over the place and especially with a nation just itching for a reason to go to war.

First of, when I said that the assassination didn't cause the war or transform the world, I did not mean that the war itself didn't change the world. The assassination-explanation is very convenient because it totally overlooks the historical context, in the same way as 9/11 as an explanation for AMerican intervention in the middle east forgets that there is a context prior to that event.

Second, there wasn't a single nation not gung-ho for war (at least in Europe) and that has nothing to do with treaties and the like. Why else do you think are historians still concerned with the question whether it is actually possible to point to a single nation (or even group of nations) causing the war.

if it has nothing to do with treaties then why does wikipedia list it as: On August 3, Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium on August 4. This act violated Belgian neutrality, to which Germany; France; and Britain were all committed. The guarantee prompted Britain, which had been neutral, to declare war on Germany on August 4.

link

[Fischkoepfin 1]

What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.

i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:

first use of chemical agents

first use of flame throwers

first use of tanks in battle

first mass use of airplanes

first war fought on 3 continents

and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.

No disagreement there. The issue is whether the assassination of one man directly caused all that. A contributing factor to be sure - but far from the only one; and its significance is somewhat contentious.

it shows the dangers of having treaties all over the place and especially with a nation just itching for a reason to go to war.

First of, when I said that the assassination didn't cause the war or transform the world, I did not mean that the war itself didn't change the world. The assassination-explanation is very convenient because it totally overlooks the historical context, in the same way as 9/11 as an explanation for AMerican intervention in the middle east forgets that there is a context prior to that event.

Second, there wasn't a single nation not gung-ho for war (at least in Europe) and that has nothing to do with treaties and the like. Why else do you think are historians still concerned with the question whether it is actually possible to point to a single nation (or even group of nations) causing the war.

Not to mention that collectively speaking, people have short memories and its easy to exaggerate the causative pressure of a particular event, rather than consider all the historical permutations surrounding it. Incidentally, which is exactly Bush was doing when making Lenin out to be some sort of "architect of evil".

Exactly, which is why it is for the most part pointless to draw historical parallels to justify current events. I do believe there's a lot to learn from history, but using history as a toolbox for stock-characters is not the same as learning from the past.

And yes, I am aware that I did repeatedly compare the Sarajevo incident to 9/11 in this thread. But I'm not saying they are the same or even similar just that they are being used in similar ways and even more importantly are often completely decontextualized.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.

i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:

first use of chemical agents

first use of flame throwers

first use of tanks in battle

first mass use of airplanes

first war fought on 3 continents

and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.

No disagreement there. The issue is whether the assassination of one man directly caused all that. A contributing factor to be sure - but far from the only one; and its significance is somewhat contentious.

it shows the dangers of having treaties all over the place and especially with a nation just itching for a reason to go to war.

First of, when I said that the assassination didn't cause the war or transform the world, I did not mean that the war itself didn't change the world. The assassination-explanation is very convenient because it totally overlooks the historical context, in the same way as 9/11 as an explanation for AMerican intervention in the middle east forgets that there is a context prior to that event.

Second, there wasn't a single nation not gung-ho for war (at least in Europe) and that has nothing to do with treaties and the like. Why else do you think are historians still concerned with the question whether it is actually possible to point to a single nation (or even group of nations) causing the war.

if it has nothing to do with treaties then why does wikipedia list it as: On August 3, Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium on August 4. This act violated Belgian neutrality, to which Germany; France; and Britain were all committed. The guarantee prompted Britain, which had been neutral, to declare war on Germany on August 4.

link

The existence of the treaty wasn't the reason for the war, in fact the purpose of treaties is to lend legitimacy to a country's dealings with one another. So while the breaking of the treaty prompted military action, its existence was really irrelevant - except to say that without treaties people would be running around doing whatever they want. Depends on the treaty of course - you might cite the Versailles treaty as a significant trigger for WW2, but it was far from the sole cause and took the nazi's rise to power in the preceding decades (itself the result of increasing nationalism and resentment at the allies treatment of germany post WW1) which effectively bankrupted the country and caused, among other things, widespread unemployment.

[Ban Hammer 12,903]

The existence of the treaty wasn't the reason for the war, in fact the purpose of treaties is to lend legitimacy to a country's dealings with one another. So while the breaking of the treaty prompted military action, its existence was really irrelevant - except to say that without treaties people would be running around doing whatever they want. Depends on the treaty of course - you might cite the Versailles treaty as a significant trigger for WW2, but it was far from the sole cause and took the nazi's rise to power in the preceding decades (itself the result of increasing nationalism and resentment at the allies treatment of germany post WW1) which effectively bankrupted the country and caused, among other things, widespread unemployment.

disagreement:

- The existence of the treaty wasn't the reason for the war....

- So while the breaking of the treaty prompted military action....

maybe it's just me but i see a conflict there. granted the start of it was between just a few countries, but the treaties in force at the time drug other countries into the conflict. the statement of "without treaties people would be running around doing whatever they want" i believe did just the opposite - i think the treaties emboldened them to do just that.

agreement:

yes, one could argue that the "dictat" of versailles was a trigger, as it bred resentment amongst the germans. and yes the nazi party capitalized on that and other issues to get in power (omg, i'm agreeing with you about something, mark that on your calendar).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

- The existence of the treaty wasn't the reason for the war....

- So while the breaking of the treaty prompted military action....

Essentially, there was no single identiable root cause to WW1. You can certainly make the claim that specific events marked the start of hostilities - but that's separate to a cause, which is clearly rooted in the politics of the time.

Edited September 6, 2006 by erekose

[*Robert* 2]

I think what he was inplying is that the two are examples of hate filled leaders of a group of people who use religion as an excuse or deciding factor in their actions as satanists on earth.

Here comes Satan again...

[Veiled Princess 1]

Someone mentioned Satan?

Edited September 7, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Someone mentioned Satan?

Watch out! There he is. Satan. In the flesh, so to speak.

Funny how Satan looks kinda like a monkey, really...

Edited September 7, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Veiled Princess 1]

More Satan pics

[jpine 0]

i really dont know what bush is doing