Eat this Saddam lovers

[GePap]

Saddam's firts transgrettion was in 1980, and if you for a second think the world would come to revolutionary Iran's help... In fact, I am sure you were alive and kicking: did you think Saddam a hitler then? or in the 8 years that followed in which you could make the connection?

His second trangression was in 1990, and he got his ass handed to him badly, and barely made it. So where does the Hitler analogy go from here?

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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.

The real threat was that Hitler learned that he would not be shut down if he acted aggressively. Not the specific troop deployment next to the Rhine. But the knowledge that his enemy lacked will.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


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.

No, they aren't. Not wanting to deal with Saddam was an example of costs outweighing the benefits. Nobody was pissing their pants at the thought of Iraqi airplanes bombing Paris. Iraq was no real threat to anybody. Not the US, not Europe, not even frigging Israel or Kuwait any more.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
Saddam's firts transgrettion was in 1980, and if you for a second think the world would come to revolutionary Iran's help... In fact, I am sure you were alive and kicking: did you think Saddam a hitler then? or in the 8 years that followed in which you could make the connection?

His second trangression was in 1990, and he got his ass handed to him badly, and barely made it. So where does the Hitler analogy go from here?

The point is more about the people who didn't want to confront him. That is the thing that interests me. There are a lot of dictators out there. and they all have their flavors, Gepap. I'm interested in when a problem should be dealt with...and in the natural tendancy to want to avoid confronting a problem.

And 1991 was very touch and go if you don't remember. GW BARELY got his war authorization through. Democrats were widely against the war. They were only for it after it was successful. And without the US, that war would never have been fought. Or maybe we would have had to fight it AFTER Saudi Arabia was taken over.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


The real threat was that Hitler learned that he would not be shut down if he acted aggressively. Not the specific troop deployment next to the Rhine. But the knowledge that his enemy lacked will.

Snooze. Hitler was a threat because he had "courage" (i.e. a willingness to use force) and the ability to do so to better his situation.

Saddam had the first, but not the second.

The first Gulf war is something reasonable people can argue about in terms of this justification. The second one is just a joke.

You'd do better talking to me about the fate of the Iraqi people.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, they aren't. Not wanting to deal with Saddam was an example of costs outweighing the benefits. Nobody was pissing their pants at the thought of Iraqi airplanes bombing Paris. Iraq was no real threat to anybody. Not the US, not Europe, not even frigging Israel or Kuwait any more.

Nobody was pissing in their pants about Hitler in 1936 either. They wanted to avoid the hassle of slapping him down. And even if THEY WERE pissing in their pants, that was still wrong. They should have confronted him earlier. And it was not just cowardice in Europe. There was a strong antipathy to war from WW1.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Snooze. Hitler was a threat because he had "courage" (i.e. a willingness to use force) and the ability to do so to better his situation.

Saddam had the first, but not the second.

The first Gulf war is something reasonable people can argue about in terms of this justification. The second one is just a joke.

You'd do better talking to me about the fate of the Iraqi people.

I see this war as a continuation of the First. He did not honor the comitments made after the first one. We brought in troops then. Very similar to Hitler blowing off the Versailles treaty and NOT getting slapped down.

Sure Hitler may have been more difficult to deal with. but the point is still that both dictators were blowing off the treaties that limited them.

Sure it was easier to deal with Saddam, but that is a matter of degree.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Curiosity


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

The USA.

Well...maybe on the first 3!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


Nobody was pissing in their pants about Hitler in 1936 either. They wanted to avoid the hassle of slapping him down.

Bull****. Read some Euro articles of the time. They figured it would be WWI all over again. Millions dead, a whole generation destroyed. I understand why they felt that way. Don't read US **** about it; not relevant. US isolationism was isolationism (no trauma from WWI). Euro pacisfism was fear.

And even if THEY WERE pissing in their pants, that was still wrong. They should have confronted him earlier. And it was not just cowardice in Europe. There was a strong antipathy to war from WW1.

I just got through saying it was wrong. Unwillingness to deal with reality from fear. Hide your head under the covers and hope it'll go away.

Saddam was a joke. Nobody was hiding their heads. But some people were and are still making laughable comparisons...

[GePap]

And without the US, that war would never have been fought. Or maybe we would have had to fight it AFTER Saudi Arabia was taken over.

And did he have any designs on SA? As of August 2 1990, saddam could have just kept driving: there was no need to stop at the SA Kuwait border if Saudi Arabia was the aim, anymore than the Germans would have had to stop to consolidate Denmark when going after Norway.

I'm interested in when a problem should be dealt with...and in the natural tendancy to want to avoid confronting a problem.

A problem should be dealt with when you are ready not only to tackle it but the consequences of taclkling it. If you solve a problem before you are ready to deal with the outcome, you probably have yourself in a bigger hole. And that is the issue. Bush dealt with "this problem" before he was ready for what was to come. Had in January of 2002 bush send a huge force to Afghanistan and a wole boatload of money and spent the next six months really tackling that issue, all the while behind the sceenes discussin what to do with Saddam and tyring to create a multilateral UN backed invasion force from day one, then, afte a year or so of putting it together coming out with the plan (even if only backed by the EU and not Russia and China) then we would be far better of. Instead this admin. lied by saying war with Iraq was necessary immidietly and thinking the world would buy the sense of urgency and dive in along.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


I see this war as a continuation of the First. He did not honor the comitments made after the first one. We brought in troops then. Very similar to Hitler blowing off the Versailles treaty and NOT getting slapped down.

Sure Hitler may have been more difficult to deal with. but the point is still that both dictators were blowing off the treaties that limited them.

Sure it was easier to deal with Saddam, but that is a matter of degree.

Hitler blew off his commitments, and those commitments were serious impediments to future German expansionism. No matter how many games Saddam was playing he couldn't invade Kuwait again. No ****ing way. His power was long gone...

[TCO]

In both cases they wanted to avoid a war to enforce an agreement. Maybe they were more scared of Hitler. Maybe that is why they didn't. And in this case they did.

Are we only supposed to deal with threats when they are huge? How many more people will we get killed that way?

And I DO think that dictators read our willingness or unwillingness to deal with them in their actions. That whole Mao qoute of "advance with a bayonet. If you meet steel, retreat. If you meet mush advance."

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Hitler blew off his commitments, and those commitments were serious impediments to future German expansionism. No matter how many games Saddam was playing he couldn't invade Kuwait again. No ****ing way. His power was long gone...

Maybe his "at the moment" cpability was not up to it. But he was biding his time. It was better to deal with it now...maybe down the line, we wouldn't have had the will.

bottom line. He made agreements at the point of a gun in 1991. He blew them off. We brought back the gun.

[KrazyHorse]

You've just made a blanket justification of war every time somebody breaks their word. Hitler was a threat and broke his word. He should have been fought immediately (a stitch in time saves nine)

Saddam wasn't a threat. Period. No more so than any other third world hellhole's dictator.

And talking about people getting killed, how many more people will get killed if you fight a war every time the remotest possibility of a threat arises? War is a serious thing, and the US et al made justifications that were a bad joke.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO
In both cases they wanted to avoid a war to enforce an agreement. Maybe they were more scared of Hitler. Maybe that is why they didn't. And in this case they did.

Hmm, lest make this scenerio. When HItler takes czechoslovakia, the French and Brits decide to take him on, no Munich. war is declared. Germany ends up winning after several years. World a better place, of course, no?

And what about 1936? France and Britiain invade, Hitler is taken out of power...next? Maybe Germany faces more revolution, communists take over, 30 years later a huge war, world ends... better ending no?

That is the problem using history: it is a set of facts in chronological order. Probabilities and possibilities are NOT included in that tally.