Guess who said that...

[Garbarsardar]

1) There's no telling how many wars it will take to
secure freedom in the homeland

2) We must wage a total war on terrorism

3) So total war is the demand of the hour.

4) We would not deserve to lead this nation if we tolerated to any degree
whatsoever any threat to the homeland.

5) Peace through victory!

6) We are fighting for our lives. If we lose it will mean the
end of our nation and our history. This war is a defensive
war. It was forced on us by our enemies.

7a) Often [the leadership] cannot reveal the
reasons for its actions without giving valuable
information to the enemy.

7b) Much of the evidence we have is intelligence
and highly sensitive. It is not possible without compromising
people or security to release precise details.

8) We wage a war to save civilization, itself. We did not seek it,
but we must fight it -- and we will prevail.

9) We feel no hatred against the <insert> people.

10) We would have nothing against <insert> if, first, it had not
suppressed <insert>, and, second, if it was not intended as the
instrument of a future attack on <insert>.
Upon us falls the task of preventing such an attack at all costs.

11) This is a battle with only one outcome: our victory not theirs.

Answers:

1) George Bush Speech 5th Aug 2002
2) Ken Adelman Wednesday, February 13, 2002; Page A27 Washington Post
(Adelman was assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975
to 1977, and arms control director -- seriously: ``arms control''! --
under President Ronald Reagan.)
3) Joseph Goebbel's ``total war'' speech 18 February
1943
4) Joseph Goebbel's speech 5 June 1943

5) Joseph Goebbel's speech 24 December 1941

6) J. Goebbel's article 26 September 1943

7a) ibid

7b) Tony Blair speech to Parliament, 4th October 2001.

8) George W Bush speech 01 Nov 2001

9) Adolf Hitler speech April 3rd 1939

10) ibid

11) Tony Blair speech Labour Party conference, Brighton 2001

[Tom Paine]

Not really, hearts and minds rhetoric has to be similar because (despitre what a few of the primary speakers of those lines might think) all men have the same sort of minds, and therefore the same sort of talk appeals to them. Churchill's "bllod, sweat, and tears" speech parallels with Hitler's "our strength, our courage" rebuilding Germany speech, et cetera.

[Tom Paine]

Monarchies never use rhetoric because they don't need to; most dictatorships of other varieties didn't bother either, Hitler was a modern dictator.

[Rex331]

Monarchies never use rhetoric because they don't need to; most dictatorships of other varieties didn't bother either, Hitler was a modern dictator.

So Kings and Queens never gave rousing speeches vilifying the enemy and praising their nation? "Dictatorships of other varieties" didn't either? What planet do you live on, my friend?

[Kanaric]

Do you people ever learn? In politics, marketing, and generally EVERYTHING where public speaking or propoganda is required they STUDY Hitler. The reason they sound the same is because the speach writers study propoganda techniques. Seriously grow up and wake up to reality.

This is like the 100th post i've seen on this board compairing Hitler/Stalin or whoever to Bush. Its annoying and incredibly boring, sorry but if you want to select who the president is in america move here and vote.

edit:
btw didn't mean to sound flamable, i just get annoyed after seeing so many of these posts. Bush has not enough power over the general people in this country, to do what people say hes "trying to do" it would be impossibe. Also the fact that most of the people who says things like this are foreigners who dont live here and therefore dont know the difference pre-bush adds to the annoyance as well.

[suleo]

sorry but if you want to select who the president is in america move here and vote.

More likely, move here (if you can get a working or other non-business, non-3-month-limit visa), wait 5-6 years to get naturalized, THEN vote

[Kanaric]

More likely, move here (if you can get a working or other non-business, non-3-month-limit visa), wait 5-6 years to get naturalized, THEN vote

Doesn't change anything, if you want to tell the american people who to vote for so badly dont sit in your foriegn country and whine about how "we dont know how to vote". Try living in the country.... rhetoric that is completely baselesss and stinks of "evil neo-fascist conpiracy theories" is incredibly tiring, boring, and most certainly annoying. Especially when bush isn't going to be around after 2008, i dont see congress successfully passing a "Elect George Bush as Emperor of Neo-America" bill.

In reality bush has almost no power, the only thing he can really do is kill social security and lower taxes. He wont be able to get away with another war, with polls and all. People just have to understand how this country works, which seems to be something that is HUGELY lacking on this board.

[suleo]

Doesn't change anything, if you want to tell the american people who to vote for so badly dont sit in your foriegn country and whine about how "we dont know how to vote". Try living in the country.... rhetoric that is completely baselesss and stinks of "evil neo-fascist conpiracy theories" is incredibly tiring, boring, and most certainly annoying. Especially when bush isn't going to be around after 2008, i dont see congress successfully passing a "Elect George Bush as Emperor of Neo-America" bill.

In reality bush has almost no power, the only thing he can really do is kill social security and lower taxes. He wont be able to get away with another war, with polls and all. People just have to understand how this country works, which seems to be something that is HUGELY lacking on this board.

I've been living in 'this country' for 5 years now As for the rest, I agree. Going overboard on the rhetoric is not helping the cause of those people who choose to do it. What it ends up doing is shattering their credibility. But this is a skill that one learns with experience (where is the shaolin smiley?)

[Garbarsardar]

Do you people ever learn? In politics, marketing, and generally EVERYTHING where public speaking or propoganda is required they STUDY Hitler. The reason they sound the same is because the speach writers study propoganda techniques. Seriously grow up and wake up to reality.

This is like the 100th post i've seen on this board compairing Hitler/Stalin or whoever to Bush. Its annoying and incredibly boring, sorry but if you want to select who the president is in america move here and vote.

edit:
btw didn't mean to sound flamable, i just get annoyed after seeing so many of these posts. Bush has not enough power over the general people in this country, to do what people say hes "trying to do" it would be impossibe. Also the fact that most of the people who says things like this are foreigners who dont live here and therefore dont know the difference pre-bush adds to the annoyance as well.

Sorry Kanaric, for causing you distress and boredom. I will to try to limit myself to cooking and such.

Doesn't change anything, if you want to tell the american people who to vote for so badly dont sit in your foriegn country and whine about how "we dont know how to vote". Try living in the country

thank you. I will STFU now. I'm additionally sorry for daring to discuss in the forums about issues of "foreign" countries.As you will realise with my next topic. And I would like to commend you on your control of your temper and the absence of flaming in your posts.

[Tom Paine]

he's right. Actors study Hitler's delivery; he used a variety of dramatic technique, he used pauses well, he used motiona nd vocal variance (pitch and tone), movement, et cetera. Who wuldn't study such a master of propagnda?

[Lord Tomyris]

he's right. Actors study Hitler's delivery; he used a variety of dramatic technique, he used pauses well, he used motiona nd vocal variance (pitch and tone), movement, et cetera. Who wuldn't study such a master of propagnda?

Ugh, during the Head Boy campaign at school my speech infront of 600 or so pupils won me the highest amount of votes in 135 years at our school. Everything I said was met with tumultuous cheering until I raised my arms to cease it immediatly and continue with my rhetoric. However, I was not allowed to become Head Boy as staff felt I was now forever associated with Hitler. It seems that you see a person make a dramatic, impassioned speech, and you automatically label them a Hitler. But I'll tell you what, in the end I was damn flattered.

[Tom Paine]

Ugh, during the Head Boy campaign at school my speech infront of 600 or so pupils won me the highest amount of votes in 135 years at our school. Everything I said was met with tumultuous cheering until I raised my arms to cease it immediatly and continue with my rhetoric. However, I was not allowed to become Head Boy as staff felt I was now forever associated with Hitler. It seems that you see a person make a dramatic, impassioned speech, and you automatically label them a Hitler. But I'll tell you what, in the end I was damn flattered.

Of course you were associated with Hitler. In context its a bloody brilliant compliemnt! But if you got a majority of pupils and didn't make any seriously off statements or policies, how could you be denied...?

Garb, I have two words for you: **** Microsoft.

[Lord Tomyris]

I honestly don't know...it's probably because I'm not a 'yes man' like the other fellows who got into the Head Boy team...one guy only got 5 votes damnit! Democracy at it's worst, pah.

[Danny5]

People just have to understand how this country works, which seems to be something that is HUGELY lacking on this board.

Right. I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Please elaborate my dear "One vote to change the world!" friend.

It is a fair comparison to draw, if a bit skewed. As you could drag out segments from other polticians all over the world and compare them to Nazi speeches. Fair and unbalanced.. Geez. Who would have a slogan similar to that?

[imb39]

As people who follow history, I'm surprised at some of the reactions brought up. History is a valuable tool that allows us to stop repeating mistakes - something that we are very poor at.

By comparing the rhetoric (for that is what it is) between Hitler, Bush, Goebbels, Blair and whoever it allows us to take a step back and consider the actions being taken.

I am also reminded of that infamous quote from Goering at the Nuremburg war trials.

Now consider that our freedoms have been curtailed in the fight against terrorism. Consider that in Spain, Eta was initially blamed (the Government lied and were, thankfully, found out). Consider some of the language on these forums regarding Islam. Now consider the lies told to start the war against Iraq. It is a dangerous game that politicians play. We should be cynical when the government wants to make changes to our freedoms and drag us into war. Quite literally, peoples lives are at stake. It is very easy to be populist, this is what Bush and Blair have been doing, this is what they have learnt from Hitler etal.

[Rolanbek]

The Lead Post indicates that the same speechwriters/orators toolbox is used by all sides.

I would offer, that all 'Great' speeches are Linked in the use of mild hypnotism/brainwashing techniques and when delivered were accompanied with subtle body language and eye-contact.

For Fun trying reading out loud the speeches while imitating the wrong voice, (as much as is possible) you will be more shocked. (in fact any nazi specch to a Bush style drawl is quite unnerving)

R

[Kscott]

I cant see speaking like Hitler as a problem. He was a master of propaganda, and as my teacher once said, you can get motivated by just listening to him(even if you dont speak German.) Bush and Hitler really cant be considred similiar much at all. I believe Hitler was much more intelligent than Bush, while Hitler is extremly more Evil than Bush. Though I disagree with Bush on almost everything that comes out of his mouth, i think he really thinks he is doing the right thing, and not striving for personal power...

[Graf Hakenfels]

This war is a defensive war. It was forced on us by our enemies.

We are waging a war against people who attacked us.

Ok, enough with the comparisons hehe.

Here is something I have been wondering over for a while:

I am always hearing that the invasion of Iraq was in response to the terrorism attack. But how can you invade a country if you dont declare war on it? Isnt there only a very vague 'war on terrorism'? If this is true, I think there were much better targets to hit the terrorists than Iraq. Also, whenever there are civilians killed in Iraq I hear about 'casualties of war.' But USA is not at war with Iraq. Does USA have the power to attack any country that has terrorists in them (like Iraq) since they have a 'war on terrorism'?

[Oldgamer]

Ok, enough with the comparisons hehe.

Here is something I have been wondering over for a while:

I am always hearing that the invasion of Iraq was in response to the terrorism attack. But how can you invade a country if you dont declare war on it? Isnt there only a very vague 'war on terrorism'? If this is true, I think there were much better targets to hit the terrorists than Iraq. Also, whenever there are civilians killed in Iraq I hear about 'casualties of war.' But USA is not at war with Iraq. Does USA have the power to attack any country that has terrorists in them (like Iraq) since they have a 'war on terrorism'?

Actually, the President has promulgated just such a policy, which is loosely termed "Pre-emption". Since Iraq, several countries have taken this doctrine seriously, including Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

The invasion of Iraq was not "illegal", from an American standpoint, since it was authorised by Congress. A declaration of war is not necessary to engage in either offensive or defensive military action. But in the case of offensive action, the approval of Congress is required. Otherwise, US troops must be withdrawn within 90 days.

All sovereign nations have the power to attack all other sovereign nations. They just have to be prepared for the potential consequences of such an action.

By the way, the war against terrorism is not a vague thing. There are numerous Islamic groups, who all describe themselves proudly as "terrorists", who are allied in one way or another against the United States, in particular, and the West, in general. Their purpose is to bring down the power of the United States, so that it never again plays a major role in world events. this would leave an incredible power vacuum which they intend to fill.

In my opinion, World War I ended in 1918. World War II ended in 1945. World War III ended in 1989. The end of each world war opened up new possibilities for aggressive powers and entities. The end of WWIII paved the way for Islamoterrorism. The war against terror should be regarded as the Fourth World War, and waged appropriately.

[Tom Paine]

In my opinion, World War I ended in 1918. World War II ended in 1945. World War III ended in 1989. The end of each world war opened up new possibilities for aggressive powers and entities. The end of WWIII paved the way for Islamoterrorism. The war against terror should be regarded as the Fourth World War, and waged appropriately.

Against which nations exactly would you be waging it? Against which alliance of foes? There are also rather a lot of neutral powers in this war, helping neither side. Hmmm.

What I like is the progression of these wars: each laid the foundations for the next; WW1 in Versailles and the reparations, WW2 in the battlelines across Europe ("an iron curtain", as Churchill put it), WW3 in Afghanistan and support for the mujahideen and Islamic terrorists.