George Bush -- the reincarnation of Hitler?

I don't think I agree entirely with you MJ. OK, I'm not American, but I still don't agree entirely. Point 1: Yes, OK. Hindenburg did appoint Hitler to Chancelor of Germany. Beforehand though, he had built on the hatred of the Treaty of Versaille in German's hearts to rise in Parliament, and get the majority. He used propaganda, hatred of the Treaty, scapegoats - he 'slagged off' the Communist, Jewish and rival parties, saying they would do nothing. Before him, was the Weimar Republic. They signed the Treaty of Versaille, they were in power during the Wall Street Crash, so were blamed. Hitler blamed them for everything, and everyone listened. He sent out the Brownshirts - SA - his own personal army, to break up othr parties meetings. He rose to power legitimately, he got the majority in the Reichstag, got ultimate power form Hindenburg, then passed the Enabling Act before banning all other parties. You say that Bush did not rise to power legitimately, Hitler did. OK, Bush was appointed, so was Hitler. End of similarities. Point 2: Agree entirely, what type of idiot passes a law to allow Military grade guns. Oh wait, it gets him votes. So what? I agree with you - Hitler passed laws that were...'bad', Bush just passes stupid laws. Point 3: Hitler attacked soveriegn nations, because he needed to. His promises were to destroy the Treaty of Versaille. The Treaty did not allow joining up with Austria, and it took away most of Germany's lands. Hitler promised to retrieve these lands (parts of Poland, Austria etc), and make Germany great again. He then attacked countries like France because they were thinking of opposing him, and he could only make Germany great if he had no opposition. Look at how well he did - Blitzkrieg destroyed France, and he was in power of his 'great nation' (--> Drei Reich - Third Great Empire) for almost 5 years! Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq etc. in a war against Terrorism, and to stop the cruelty of Saddam. No connection. Point 4: Hitler's concentration camps were there to send prisoners, and to carry out Genocide - kill all the Jews. Bush has Prison camps - house the terrorists his army captures. No connections. The odd similarity, but apart from that, nothing is similar.

1.) The details were different. I agree on that much. That wasn't the point I was really trying to make though, in my first argument. What the point was, neither of them were elected to power. Though both of them gained power in a technically legal fashion, neither of them should have really gotten power. They both got it underhandedly.

2.) Your point three says that Hitler needed to attach these countries because of whatever reason, it doesn't really matter. That's an excuse. Bush uses the same excuse, just different details. Instead of needing to destroy the Treaty of Versailles Bush needs to "rid the world of terrorism." It's his self-appointed duty. He's required to do it, supposedly.

3.) We don't know what these concentration camps are going to be used for. If you want to imprison someone, you use prisons. These concentration camps are sick.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

That means any muslim living in America is a possible target.

Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.

This sounds a lot like the McCarthy era.

Once the government is given that much power, they know that their power is unchecked. They can do whatever they need to, which might mean completely "getting rid of the menace."

Like I said before, the details might not be exactly the same, but the idea is.