Hitler or Osama?

• Sonofanump

  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.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Way be to fucking retard Sleeper by making this thread.
• Sonofanump

  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.
• Jawbreaker

  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.
• mcburg93

  

  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.
• lhslep134

  

  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.
• Rotinaj

  

  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.
• 2quik4u

  

  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
• Sonofanump

  I am not surprised many do not comprehend the question given. But would rather give an answer based upon a different criteria.
• sleeper

  

  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".
• dwccrew

  

  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.
• Sonofanump

  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.
• dwccrew

  

  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.
• Sonofanump

  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?
• dwccrew

  

  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.
• sleeper

  

  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.
• dwccrew

  

  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.
• Pick6

  

  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.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  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!"
• dwccrew

  

  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?
• dwccrew

  

  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.
• dwccrew

  

  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.
• Pick6

  

  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.
• dwccrew

  

  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.
• dwccrew

  

  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.