Eat this Saddam lovers

[GePap]

Hitler was an ideological menace: he had already writen down esactly what he would do.

Saddam was an oportunistic threat..he invaded only when he saw an opportnity open.

Lets look at his relation with Iran. In 1975 the Kurds rose up and Saddam moved to crush this: the Shah, ruler of Iraq's much bigger neighbor and a customer of the most up to date western military tech available, moves forces to the border and tells Saddam to back down. And Saddam has to act like the Shah's ***** cause the Shah could squash him and thw est would back their buddy the Shah. Then in 1979, behold, the Shah falls, the country in in revolutionary chaos, now ruled by a radical regime that not only advocates Saddam's fall as well (and tries to assasinate high-ranking Iraqs cause Khomeini hated Saddam) but has made enemies of the west and has no realtion to the Soviets: this once powerful neighbor who is was jerking him around now is down...... So Saddam invades to get a few oil-rich bits he always wanted. Yes, that sounds like a hitlerian figure bent on world domination! Oh, and if the Iran-Iraq war lasted 8 years, it was because, once the iranians had gotten most of their land back by 1984, it was Khomeini who decided to wage a crusade against the evil Baathists and prolongued the war for 4 more years.

And as for Kuwait, that has already being discussed.

[SlowwHand]

Color the thread dead.
Here come the Hitler references.

Can't make a convincing arguement?
Don't recognize nor accept facts?
Play that Hitler card.

[Q Classic]

sloww, it was your side who brought up hitler...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Osweld


Sorry guy, I'm not building the strawman, Rumsfield is.

Then give me the specific statements that you disagree with. Rummie is right that our weapons are way more precise. Look at the differences in collateral damage in Iraq versus Vietnam. More importantly, look at the greater damage we can do to the enemy with way less airplanes. You are still living in a digital world. Our bombing capability is way better than what it was 30 or 60 years ago. Better does not mean "perfect". Capiche. You really need to get over your visceral reaction to Pentagon breifings.

[GePap]

Q got you with your hand in the cookie yard sloww. Yep, it was TCO who first brough up Hitler, and who constantly makes the Saddam=Hitler connection.
I am simply showing the logical falacy involved.

Good laugh.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
Hitler was an ideological menace: he had already writen down esactly what he would do.

Saddam was an oportunistic threat..he invaded only when he saw an opportnity open.

Lets look at his relation with Iran. In 1975 the Kurds rose up and Saddam moved to crush this: the Shah, ruler of Iraq's much bigger neighbor and a customer of the most up to date western military tech available, moves forces to the border and tells Saddam to back down. And Saddam has to act like the Shah's ***** cause the Shah could squash him and thw est would back their buddy the Shah. Then in 1979, behold, the Shah falls, the country in in revolutionary chaos, now ruled by a radical regime that not only advocates Saddam's fall as well (and tries to assasinate high-ranking Iraqs cause Khomeini hated Saddam) but has made enemies of the west and has no realtion to the Soviets: this once powerful neighbor who is was jerking him around now is down...... So Saddam invades to get a few oil-rich bits he always wanted. Yes, that sounds like a hitlerian figure bent on world domination! Oh, and if the Iran-Iraq war lasted 8 years, it was because, once the iranians had gotten most of their land back by 1984, it was Khomeini who decided to wage a crusade against the evil Baathists and prolongued the war for 4 more years.

And as for Kuwait, that has already being discussed.

1. "Peace in our time."

2. Saddam has often said that he wants to rule the Arab world. And unification of the Arab "people" resonates strongly. Maybe an interesting analogy to the German people.

-----------------

But the point remains. Sure no two situations are identical. But we should have dealt with Hitler. EVen at a "non-critical" juncture. That is how you handle a bully.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


Q got you with your hand in the cookie yard sloww. Yep, it was TCO who first brough up Hitler, and who constantly makes the Saddam=Hitler connection.
I am simply showing the logical falacy involved.

Good laugh.

You oversimplify with the Saddam = Hitler claim. The point is that you can deal with a transgressor immediately or wait until things get really bad (i.e. a critical juncture).

[Q Classic]

but you handle a bully with a lot more tact, and much more judicious use of force.

the wise ruler does not rule by screaming loudly and carrying a big stick. he speaks softly and uses the stick when needed, quickly, cleanly, and efficiently.

we didn't speak softly, and that has cost us the respect and goodwill around the world.

[SlowwHand]

Just nuke them. Hell. We have an overage of ordinance, don't we?
What's the shelf-life for nukes?

I know! Get the Iraqi government to outlaw guns!
Sure. That will work just swell.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO


1. "Peace in our time."

Wow, you can quote! Have a cookie. But it does not back up anything you say.

2. Saddam has often said that he wants to rule the Arab world. And unification of the Arab "people" resonates strongly. Maybe an interesting analogy to the German people.

And Mussolini said he would recreate the Roman empire, which may have resonated with the Italian people. He even invaded helpless states like Ethiopia and Albania. He even used chemical weapons (in Lybia and Ethiopia). But for some reason no one ever uses the Mussolini analogy..maybe cause it lacks the power of the "Hitler" one, cause it is clear Mussolini was an opportunistic bully and not an ideological driven megalomanic?

But the point remains. Sure no two situations are identical. But we should have dealt with Hitler. EVen at a "non-critical" juncture. That is how you handle a bully.

Hitler was more than a bully, he was an ideologue. As for what should have been done with hitler, that is a point in time issue with no relevance to today. You might as well ask what should have been done with Henry II, Hohenstaufen emperor of the HRE in the 12th century.

[TCO]

I think that when to act and when not to act has relevance. And sure we can learn from earlier times. Even from Roman history.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO
You oversimplify with the Saddam = Hitler claim. The point is that you can deal with a transgressor immediately or wait until things get really bad (i.e. a critical juncture).

Get really bad? Iraq in 2003 was weaker than Iraq in 1979, far less 1991. That is the problem with this line of arguement.

And you oversimplify by equating dealing with transgressor to War. They are not the same. There are levels of punishment just like levels of crime.

[TCO]

Why do you think people didn't act with Hitler? Perhaps it was also that the time was non-critical? What was going thorugh those people's minds? perhaps they were anti-war and anti-confrontation?

[KrazyHorse]

Hitler was dangerous and people were afraid of confronting him. Nobody was afraid of Saddam...

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO
I think that when to act and when not to act has relevance. And sure we can learn from earlier times. Even from Roman history.

Unless you can point to some imminent Iraqi threat, what was the reason for dealign with Iraq in March 2003 and not, say, April 2004 after two years of setting the groundwork for an aftermath?

As for learning from history, what exactly does one learn? In 1941 the Us confronted japan's actions in the Pacific by starting a possibly crippling embargo on Japan. We had war anyway. And I am sure there are examples of Standing up to the evil guy..and then getting crushed by him even sooner than you would have otherwise. That is the problem with history: there is an example of everything, and why any action is correct, incorrect. You just have to dig hard enough.