Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

Hitler or Osama?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Hitler or Osama?
S

Sonofanump

May 3, 2011 9:03 AM
lhslep134;758009 wrote:Deleted my post. Don't want to talk about it. Don't want to get pissed off over a thread on the interwebz.

OK. I was just confused over the semantics. You have every right to be pissed about that.
May 3, 2011 9:03am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
May 3, 2011 9:08 AM
Way be to fucking retard Sleeper by making this thread.
May 3, 2011 9:08am
S

Sonofanump

May 3, 2011 9:09 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;758015 wrote:^

German U-boats didn't enter the gulf or the Atlantic coast? I suppose it depends on where you set the U.S. border. But I still think the line of thinking is senseless, citing "direct" vs. "indirect" casualties is simply splitting hairs. I can't believe anyone would even begin to compare the two...on a global or American level. The U.S. wouldn't even exist right now in its current state if we didn't intervene in WWII.

The USA exist in it's current state due to a lot of past events. The question was regarding the USA, not European powers. I stated as far I could recall (it's been awhile since college), that no German attack was on the US. If I am wrong, please let me know how.
May 3, 2011 9:09am
J

Jawbreaker

Senior Member

520 posts
May 3, 2011 9:21 AM
Sonofanump;758019 wrote:The USA exist in it's current state due to a lot of past events. The question was regarding the USA, not European powers. I stated as far I could recall (it's been awhile since college), that no German attack was on the US. If I am wrong, please let me know how.

If the US did not enter the European theatre during WWII, would Germany ever pose a threat to US soil? Just because Germany didn't attack anyone on American soil, doesn't mean they weren't a threat.
May 3, 2011 9:21am
mcburg93's avatar

mcburg93

permaban to basement

3,167 posts
May 3, 2011 9:27 AM
Manhattan Buckeye pretty much said all that needs to be said here. Hitler by far and not even a close comparison. Also to the guy that said both my grandfathers and my one grandmother werent innocent well I guess there isnt much to say about you then.
May 3, 2011 9:27am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
May 3, 2011 9:43 AM
Sonofanump;758016 wrote:OK. I was just confused over the semantics. You have every right to be pissed about that.

My grandfather's family wasn't born in America, if that ends your confusion.
May 3, 2011 9:43am
Rotinaj's avatar

Rotinaj

Senior Member

7,699 posts
May 3, 2011 9:49 AM
Jawbreaker;758027 wrote: Just because Germany didn't attack anyone on American soil, doesn't mean they weren't a threat.

lol +1. Im dumfounded that 7 people picked Osama.
May 3, 2011 9:49am
2quik4u's avatar

2quik4u

Senior Member

4,388 posts
May 3, 2011 10:01 AM
Jawbreaker;758027 wrote:If the US did not enter the European theatre during WWII, would Germany ever pose a threat to US soil? Just because Germany didn't attack anyone on American soil, doesn't mean they weren't a threat.

they would have gotten their asses beat if they tried to invade the US hell they would have had a hard time invading Britain

somewhat off of what u were saying but idgaf
May 3, 2011 10:01am
S

Sonofanump

May 3, 2011 10:13 AM
I am not surprised many do not comprehend the question given. But would rather give an answer based upon a different criteria.
May 3, 2011 10:13am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
May 3, 2011 10:44 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;757923 wrote:I'd like to think that my grandfather that was drafted into the US Army was pretty innocent, he didn't ask for it.

If the question was who killed more American civilians, why not make that the poll (pole)? You asked for the bigger enemy, I'd say between (i) someone that nearly caused the destruction of western civilization and whose efforts led to the U.S. in a battle of 5 years with the drafting all available men and shifting nearly all manufacturing to military uses, and (ii) a flea on the back of a wolf that caused a sting that hurt, but within a week the affected area was back in operation, with subways working, airlines up, stock markets at regular hours and people getting by, I don't see how anyone but an imbecile would not see the difference.

Soldiers aren't innocent, but nice try.

I asked for the bigger enemy to the United States of America. Does anyone really think Germany would have simply marched across the Atlantic Ocean and taken over the US? LOL

Also, Iraq and Afghanistan are two wars that were a direct result of 911, wars that are more expensive than WW2 would ever be, further plummeting this country deeper into debt in which we cannot sustain. Not to mention the impact Osama has had on our psyche and freedom(The Patriot Act). He was hardly a "flea on the back of a wolf".
May 3, 2011 10:44am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 3, 2011 10:45 AM
sleeper;757922 wrote:Innocent Americans? No he didn't.
So all the soldiers of the US that were killed in WW2 were not innocent? You asked who was a greater enemy of the US, not who killed more civilians. Under your criteria the Unabomber was a greater threat to the US than Hitler since he killed more innocent American civilians. That is not the only criteria of being a great enemy. Hitler posed the greatest threat this world has ever seen in modern history. He was organized, well funded and had an elite military. Osama was well funded, that's about it.

Now if you want to ask this question, which idealogy is a greater threat the USA, Nazi or radical Islam, I may say radical Islam; but Hitler was by far the greater enemy as he was the ruler of a nation and Osama is just a figure head.
Sonofanump;757982 wrote:Directly a thread to the USA; Osama. To the world as a whole; Hitler. As far as I can recall, no German solider, bullet or bomb entered US territory. The US went to Europe to fight, we did not defend our territory but to Japan, and that was on Pacific island territories. Hitler was a much worse person, but the question asked was enemy to the USA.
History was your minor and you don't know that German U-boats did enter US waterways? :rolleyes:
Sonofanump;758066 wrote:I am not surprised many do not comprehend the question given. But would rather give an answer based upon a different criteria.

What is the criteria then? The question asked was which one of the two was a greater enemy of the USA? I think Hitler was a much greater threat based on the fact that he caused a world war that the US HAD to enter and we lost over 300,000 men in that war. Had the US not entered WW2, there is a great chance Hitler would have taken over all of Europe and could have attacked and beaten the US. Osama and AQ have never and would never have had the ability or posed the threat of being able to take over America had we not went into Afghanistan. They still could have carried off suicide missions (which they still can) but didn't pose the threat of being able to take over a nation such as ours.
May 3, 2011 10:45am
S

Sonofanump

May 3, 2011 10:50 AM
WWII was such a harsh loss of life due to the technology of the day, nothing like Normandy would occur today. If that is your reasoning, then Robert E. Lee would be a bigger enemy to the USA than Osama.
May 3, 2011 10:50am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 3, 2011 10:50 AM
sleeper;758091 wrote:Soldiers aren't innocent, but nice try.
I would contend that the ones that are not volunteer soldiers and are just drafted into service are innocent. They may lose that innocense as a result of being drafted and facing the horrors of war.
sleeper wrote:I asked for the bigger enemy to the United States of America. Does anyone really think Germany would have simply marched across the Atlantic Ocean and taken over the US? LOL
Do you think Osama and AQ would have just marched over and taken over the US? LOL
sleeper wrote:Also, Iraq and Afghanistan are two wars that were a direct result of 911, wars that are more expensive than WW2 would ever be, further plummeting this country deeper into debt in which we cannot sustain. Not to mention the impact Osama has had on our psyche and freedom(The Patriot Act). He was hardly a "flea on the back of a wolf".

I can't really disagree with this statement, however, I still believe Hitler as the greater enemy.
May 3, 2011 10:50am
S

Sonofanump

May 3, 2011 10:51 AM
dwccrew;758092 wrote:History was your minor and you don't know that German U-boats did enter US waterways? :rolleyes:
It's been awhile, please educate me, how many Americans lost their lives on US soil from these U-boats?
May 3, 2011 10:51am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 3, 2011 10:53 AM
Sonofanump;758099 wrote:WWII was such a harsh loss of life due to the technology of the day, nothing like Normandy would occur today. If that is your reasoning, then Robert E. Lee would be a bigger enemy to the USA than Osama.

Also the fact that we are using our sophisticated weapons vs. a rag tag bunch of guys living in caves is why we have less loss of life. In WW2 it was the most sophisticated militaries vs. each other of the day.
May 3, 2011 10:53am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
May 3, 2011 10:54 AM
dwccrew;758100 wrote: Do you think Osama and AQ would have just marched over and taken over the US? LOL

Why does everyone equate "greater enemy" with invading and taking over the US? Osama has done more damage to America than Hitler could ever dream of.
May 3, 2011 10:54am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 3, 2011 10:55 AM
Sonofanump;758102 wrote:It's been awhile, please educate me, how many Americans lost their lives on US soil from these U-boats?

That's not what your statement said though, your statement said no German soldiers, bullet or bomb entered US terrirtory; which is incorrect.
May 3, 2011 10:55am
Pick6's avatar

Pick6

A USA American

14,946 posts
May 3, 2011 10:55 AM
Sonofanump;758066 wrote:I am not surprised many do not comprehend the question given. But would rather give an answer based upon a different criteria.

this!!!

I didn't know Hitler came to our country and killed thousands of innocent people.
May 3, 2011 10:55am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
May 3, 2011 10:57 AM
Tobias Fünke;757938 wrote:Hitler. Anyone who picks Osama either lost someone in the war or doesn't know what they're talking about.

I'm voting for Bin Laden out of 100% spite to you, for 0% reasoning other than, "ha, ha!"
May 3, 2011 10:57am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 3, 2011 11:00 AM
sleeper;758107 wrote:Why does everyone equate "greater enemy" with invading and taking over the US? Osama has done more damage to America than Hitler could ever dream of.

I equate greater enemy to greater threat. Hitler was a much greater threat during WW2 than Osama has ever been; just because we weren't alive to experience it and we are alive to experience the threat of Osama doesn't make Osama the greater threat.

Many of the things you said (creation of P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and spending money on Iraq war) were not because of Osama, it was because of fear mongering politicians that used Osama as an excuse. Iraq has nothing to do with Osama, so I don't see how that can be factored in to the damage that Osama has inflicted on this nation. The PA was a means to monitor US citizens that certain members of the government have want to implement and when 9-11 happened it was the perfect opporttunity to pass it. You think they really wdrafted that legislation in a few days after 9-11 or do you think it was already sitting on someone's desk before that?
May 3, 2011 11:00am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 3, 2011 11:01 AM
It's easy to pick Osama because most, if not all, of us never lived through the days of Hitler. It is being completely short sighted. Hitler rallied nations behind him (one that directly attacked the US), this is something Osama could never do. Other than that, I have said my thoughts on the subject and it seems the majority agree according to the poll. Otherwise I suppose it is subjective.
May 3, 2011 11:01am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 3, 2011 11:06 AM
I'd also like to add in that we can say Osama has caused more damage just because we are still in the midst of the fighting and the effects of our campaign against he and his rag tag group of fighters. But inj the middle of the campaign against Hitler, I am sure Americans were saying how much damage he caused to the country as well. We've just had 65 years to overcome that damage, let's see what happens in 65 years after Osama.
May 3, 2011 11:06am
Pick6's avatar

Pick6

A USA American

14,946 posts
May 3, 2011 11:06 AM
dwccrew;758121 wrote:It's easy to pick Osama because most, if not all, of us never lived through the days of Hitler. It is being completely short sighted. Hitler rallied nations behind him (one that directly attacked the US), this is something Osama could never do. Other than that, I have said my thoughts on the subject and it seems the majority agree according to the poll. Otherwise I suppose it is subjective.

Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor because of Hitler. In fact, the bombing is the main reason we joined WWII..so we obviously didn't see Hitler as a huge threat. More lives were lost on 9/11 than on Dec 7th, 1941.
May 3, 2011 11:06am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 3, 2011 11:14 AM
Pick6;758126 wrote:Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor because of Hitler. In fact, the bombing is the main reason we joined WWII..so we obviously didn't see Hitler as a huge threat. More lives were lost on 9/11 than on Dec 7th, 1941.

Nor did I say that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because of Hitler. I said Hitler rallied countries behind him, one being Japan (the country that attacked us). And you are very wrong if you say we didn't view Hitler as a huge threat, Germany and Italy declared war on the US on 12-11-41; just 4 days after Pearl Harbor. Japan, Germany and Italy were all collaborating together, so yes, the US did view Hitler as a huge threat.


I don't dispute that more lives were lost on 9-11 (appx 3,000) than at Pearl Harbor (appx. 2400), but does that really matter? One single event in each war doesn't contitute who the greater enemy was.
May 3, 2011 11:14am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
May 3, 2011 11:15 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree. But I think we can all agree that both men were great threats to the US and the world is much better off that both of these men are dead.
May 3, 2011 11:15am