Eat this Saddam lovers

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


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

The point is that Hitler made claims of peacefullness. The quote is from an Englishman who had met with Hitler. Heck Hitler made an agreement with the USSR and then stabbed them in the back. And are only "Mein Kampf" writing idealogues to be feared or confronted? The literature of communism talks about taking over the world. Yet we used a policy of containment with little border wars. Did not escalate to all out war with the Russians.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by TCO


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.

If you want to dismiss what they say in the briefings as irrelevant bull crap, fine. I do too. But lot's of people don't.

I just really hate it when they take the moral high ground then go on to dismiss the 'collateral damage' they've done. They're no better then, say, a hijacker who'd fly a plane full of peopl- er sorry, collateral damage, into the pentagon. I just wish Rumsfield would stop trying to deny it and admit that the US army is an indistriminate killer, just like every other military in the world, and that they have no problems killing a hundred people if they're in the way of their target.

Or killing a hundred people by mistake, for that matter.

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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?

Sorry, but you have yet to make an arguemnt that the time with Saddam would ever be critical. The critical time with him passed already, it was called the Gulf War of 1991.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

1. We were in the right with respect to Japan. What is your point? What we should have done was watch out more. Not confront them less.

2. What is an "imminent threat". Hitler was not an imminent threat in 1936. Still if he had been dealt with earlier, things would have been a lot better.

[KrazyHorse]

Dude, I can't believe you have the balls to claim that Saddam was a Hitleresque threat.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Didn´t Hitler attack american Ships with his Submarines and drew the USA into war this way?

Now, you are thinking about WW1. In WW2 the Italians and Germans honored their defense agreement with the Japanese and declared war on the US two days after Pearl Harbor.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Hitler was dangerous and people were afraid of confronting him. Nobody was afraid of Saddam...

Yet if they had overcome their fear and dealt with the problem earlier, it would have been better.

[KrazyHorse]

We all know that Iraq had the sort of industrial base to make them a world power like Germany was in the 30s and 40s...

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
We all know that Iraq had the sort of industrial base to make them a world power like Germany was in the 30s and 40s...

They are not exactly the same countries, but the point is that it is better to deal with a transgressor when he initially pushes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO


The point is that Hitler made claims of peacefullness. The quote is from an Englishman who had met with Hitler. Heck Hitler made an agreement with the USSR and then stabbed them in the back. And are only "Mein Kampf" writing idealogues to be feared or confronted? The literature of communism talks about taking over the world. Yet we used a policy of containment with little border wars. Did not escalate to all out war with the Russians.

And all you write only backs up what I said: history gives us examles to back any action. So using history as your guide is a guide to failure.

Take the soviets: we had plenty of comparisons of Stalin to hitler, yet the fact rsned out that Stalin, despite notion of world revolution and the sch had no such dreams, and there was no great war with him as with hitler.

The question TCO is not what examples there are in hisotry, bu why one picks the examples they do. You do not make your decsions based on hisotry, you make them and then go back to history to provide evidence. That is how the system works. So enoguh about the bits you chose to back you up: get to why you chose those and not the other exmaples of history that fit just as well, but do not ack your specific line of thought.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


Yet if they had overcome their fear and dealt with the problem earlier, it would have been better.

Duh. But that doesn't mean that fighting a war is always the right answer. It was the right answer to deal with Hitler when he started making extraterritorial grabs (because each time he did it significantly weakened the position of everybody else wrt him), but somebody like Saddam was in no way, shape or form a serious opponent on the battlefield. Especially not in 2003. And he wasn't increasing his strength wrt you; he'd been sliding for a decade.

Bringing up Hitler is a laughable analogy when talking about Saddam. Maybe when talking about NK it would be appropriate (if a bit strained).

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Duh. But that doesn't mean that fighting a war is always the right answer. It was the right answer to deal with Hitler when he started making extraterritorial grabs (because each time he did it significantly weakened the position of everybody else wrt him), but somebody like Saddam was in no way, shape or form a serious opponent on the battlefield. Especially not in 2003. And he wasn't increasing his strength wrt you; he'd been sliding for a decade.

Bringing up Hitler is a laughable analogy when talking about Saddam. Maybe when talking about NK it would be appropriate (if a bit strained).

It was the right thing to do when he militarized the Rhineland. "Fear of Hitler" and "not wanting to deal with Saddam" are both examples of wanting to avoid a war.

And I agree that war is not always the answer. Nor should every transgression be confronted. But I also don't think that we should always wait until extremis. Sometimes it makes more sense to deal with it earlier.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


They are not exactly the same countries, but the point is that it is better to deal with a transgressor when he initially pushes.

No, it isn't the point.

It's better to deal with a transgressor immediately and forcefully if not dealing with him means that you lose a significant part of your ability to deal with him later. In other words, when he's a significant military threat. If he's not and starts to act like a ***** then you have other options which are better. War should be avoided when it can be and fought when it has to be. Hitler in the Rhineland was a very real threat. Saddam plinking at coalition airplanes and playing games with weapons inspectors wasn't.

[Curiosity]

Originally posted by TCO
1. Invading his neighbors,
2. developling WOMD.
3. Usind WOMD.
4. Hiding weapons development from inspectors (we know that he did this to Blix in the late 80s).
5. Of not following agreements (most importantly those from the 1991 war) unless held to it with a gun.

Yes TCO, and there is only one other country with such a bad record on these 5 points.

The USA.

[KrazyHorse]

People didn't fight Hitler because they were afraid and so deluded themselves into thinking he'd stop before he got to them. People didn't want to fight Saddam because the "threat" he posed was laughable.

Not analogous.