• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rumsfeld on Chavez and Democracy

FreeChile

Graduate Poster
F
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,039
At a press luncheon, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "You've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He's a person who was elected legally just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally."
Click to expand...
Didn't we conclude in some threads here that Hitler was not elected but appointed? Not to mention that the opposition was being assassinated as he rose to power. So, what is Rumsfeld trying to say here? This line is used very offen when talking about unsavory, elected foreign officials.
 
I think he's trying to say that democracy is the greatest form of government ever concieved. He hopes that one day every country in the world will one day become a true democracy. That is unless we don't like the people they elect, in which case we will try to kill them, sanction them, or invade them. Oh, he's also sad that you hate our freedom.
 
FreeChile said:
Didn't we conclude in some threads here that Hitler was not elected but appointed? Not to mention that the opposition was being assassinated as he rose to power. So, what is Rumsfeld trying to say here? This line is used very offen when talking about unsavory, elected foreign officials.
Click to expand...

Hitler was indeed not "elected". Those who put him in power though they could control him.
 
Well, I personally find the comparison of Chavez with Hitler horribly offensive. Say what you will about Chavez, but he's no Hitler.

And yes, Rumsfeld is factually incorrect. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by von Hindenburg. The Nazis *did* have some success in the Reichstag election prior to that, but Hitler was an appointee, not an elected official. (The Nazi thugs, after Hitler's appointment, essentially forced the Reichstag to vote Hitler "emergency powers," which basically meant voting themselves impotent.)
 
I think what Rumsfeld was trying to say here was that Rumsfeld is a friggin idiot and as a friggin idiot he will say any damn thing he feels like regardless of the fact that it is factually correct, stupid and pointlessly antagonistic to other countries.

But maybe I read more into it than he intended.
 
Cleon said:
And yes, Rumsfeld is factually incorrect. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by von Hindenburg. The Nazis *did* have some success in the Reichstag election prior to that, but Hitler was an appointee, not an elected official. (The Nazi thugs, after Hitler's appointment, essentially forced the Reichstag to vote Hitler "emergency powers," which basically meant voting themselves impotent.)
Click to expand...

Obvious comparison, what obvious comparison? I see nuzhink, I hear nuzhink!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom