You lack perspective and are too quick to conclude that a connection exists, let me tell you why:
_ Hitler was a genocidal maniac, and he killed millions of innocent people in camps specially created for that purpose (Auschwitz being the largest with at least 1 million killed there, their numbers) and worked millions of others to their death creating missiles, roads and bom shelters (Dora mines).
You dismiss this by saying "oh yeah, besides that". It's a pretty huge "that" to set aside. In contrast, the people that Bush has killed due to this war (if we're putting all the blame on one man, like with Hitler) have been combatants (you expect this) and collateral to the war (ie, not intended) and are due to the nature of the war itself. You can't carpet bomb a place you know is housing the insurgents without civilian casualties (especially because the insurgents pick heavily populated areas to hide, using the innocent as human shields to get following for their cause. Which is worse?). The USA has yet to round up an entire town and shoot all of the inhabitants with no regard for anything moral. That there have been immoral actions, yes. But they are isloated, and not a trademark of the USA. The Nazis however...
That the war was unfounded and pushed forwards based on lies, fine. We're not discussing that, we're comparing two "war mongerers"
_ Secondly, Hitler's attempt to take over the world vs Bush's. It's tough to not come across as condescending, but come on man, it is NOTHING like it. Hitler started getting his lebensraum with areas east of germany, then the now Check Republic, then Poland, then France with everything in between (Belgium, Holland, Lux.), then attempted taking over England, and tried to take over Russia... He was going after all of his allies, and major world powers (England was a if not THE force to be reconed with, as the USA was supposedly neutral). He didn't go after little countries really far from where he lived. He tried to take over everything around him, and when he did, that became part of Germany, or a german protectorate. He was destroying everyone around him to in effect take over Europe and then some.
In contrast, Bush is doing nothing of the sort. We're attacking Irak, far far away from the USA, maybe for oil, or maybe for a genuine conscern for the WMD's being sold to terrorist and which have since been moved to syria, or both, or neither. Irak is not going to be the 51st state of the USA, we're trying to pull out, not stay and control the country. The army is not going to then invade saudi arabia, Iran (well ok, maybe), egypt, syria (again, eeeehhh)... you get the point.There is not a blitzkrieg going on or a massive offensive. If Bush was trying to be Hitler he's failed, and im sure Himmler is appauled at the comparison. The Germans had plans to take over Europe. The USA doesn't even have a plan to get out like they would like.
_Finally, Bush and Hitler do and did want to expand their influence world wide... That's what ANY leader of a powerful country wants to do. You say by using force, so then you are saying their methods are the same. They aren't. No offensive is currently being held, and the USA is trying to bring stability to a region in perhaps the worst way possible, but not in any sort of Hitler style.
Dude, ask your grandparents of great granbdparents if THEY, who would know, if Bush is acting like Hitler.
