Iraq War and Adolf Hitler

[castille]

If Neville Chamberlain had acted like Bush, Hitler would've been stopped before SS troops marched through Czechslovakia.

If France had some guts, Hitler would've been stopped before the Rhineland!

Its amazing how so many people are passive.
"We'll let Saddam kill a few more million people, lets not invade him."
"I'm sure Saddam isn't a bad guy, why not wait a century before the UN can authorise a war against him?"


I don't like Bush, but I do like his determined attitude. Sure, he speaks like a moron, and he doesn't understand how to lie, or diplomatic tact, but his actions are worth it.

Some people compare Hitler to Bush. I compare Saddam to Hitler. Saddam invaded and conquered Kuwait - as Hitler conquered Poland. Saddam made claims of "living space" and "national territory" to back up his invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Didn't Hitler say something about "living space"?


Imagine what happened if Saddam hadn't been stopped.

Another 1 million Iraqis executed?
Another 10 years of torture and rape?
Another decade of Saddam's propaganda? ("America is living in immense poverty, and Iraq is a paradise! Heil Saddam!")
Another claim on Kuwait, "Reich Territory"?

Do you support any of this?

How many Iraqis have died in the war with the US? Compare this with the amount of Iraqis who died under Saddam's regime. The lesser of 2 evils, as the French said when they voted for Chirac over Le Pen the fascist. Isn't the deaths of a few hundred Iraqi civilians (most of them caused by suicide bombers) lesser than the deaths of 1 million Iraqis by Saddam's hand?



For those of you claiming the US is invading Iraq for the oil, well guess what? The Europeans happen to be against the invasion for OIL too!. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/17...17/russia.iraq/

[Packratt]

Another interesting supposition, that Bush stopped Saddam.

I would ask for proof that the sanctions and other actions that had been in place prior to the war did not already stop Saddam.

I ask this because there is no proof at this time that there was anything to stop when the US invaded. There were no ongoing executions, weapons of mass destruction, or any indication of a military buildup that threatened any other soveriegn nation.

While I do agree that Saddam did some horrible things and should have been stopped. The current question of the day is whether or not he was already rendered impotent before the US even invaded.

In other words... What more did Bush do that wasn't already done?

[french_jew]

Bush stopped Saddam.... are you dumb ?!!!!

Was this already done ?
No, so what's the problem ???

Again, an stupid anti-war pro-Saddam with no arguments...

Nathan

[SeanWah]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
While I do agree that Saddam did some horrible things and should have been stopped.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Great, you agree, and he was. What are you complaining about, then? Humanitarian reasons were at least 1/3 the driving force behind the war, and you know as well as I do that UN sanctions did nothing to stop the slaughters of dissidents.

I personally believe the US should be isolationist. No matter how much we try to help we will always be hated, and things will always go back to the way they were before we helped. HOWEVER, this would require a drastic policy overhaul, and in the interim, the US still remains the world's policeman (whether you like it or not) and should continue to act in that capacity.

[Suburbanite]

The Hitler thing is getting old... us Jews just made him up anyways.

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SeanWah,)


Great, you agree, and he was. What are you complaining about, then? Humanitarian reasons were at least 1/3 the driving force behind the war, and you know as well as I do that UN sanctions did nothing to stop the slaughters of dissidents.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It's interesting that for being only a suggested 1/3 of the reason for war, that this humanitarian argument is the only leg left for the Bush adminsistration to stand on.

When the argument for war was being laid out to the world, humanitarian reasons were barely ever mentioned, but now it's the only argument that Bush supporters can muster these days.

Your suggested 1/3 has turned into 3/3.

As for the sanctions and no-fly zones not stopping the slaughter of dissodents. The last slaughter occured after the first Iraq/US war when the US fomented insurrection by the Kurds but then left them without support to sway in the breeze. After that, they retreated to the north and had a degree of protection during the rest of the sanction period.

Of course, your argument is still not yet supportable because we have yet to see if the apparently ill-planned US nation building exercize in Iraq will lead to a stable situation or one that degenerates and might cause more suffering than if we would have kept the course. Time has yet to judge that.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

I personally believe the US should be isolationist. No matter how much we try to help we will always be hated, and things will always go back to the way they were before we helped. HOWEVER, this would require a drastic policy overhaul, and in the interim, the US still remains the world's policeman (whether you like it or not) and should continue to act in that capacity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

When one is a policeman, does one make the laws or enforce the laws that already exist?

Certainly you could argue that the US should share the burden of enforcing the international laws of conduct, yet when the US embarked on the Iraq war it made it's own laws as it went along and became a rogue cop, so to speak.

Might Makes Right is a difficult argument to sustain when trying to defend acusations that any government does not parallel what Germany became in their bid to become the world's sole arbiter of law.

[LiveAndLetLive]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
If Neville Chamberlain had acted like Bush, Hitler would've been stopped before SS troops marched through Czechslovakia.

If France had some guts, Hitler would've been stopped before the Rhineland!

Its amazing how so many people are passive.
"We'll let Saddam kill a few more million people, lets not invade him."
"I'm sure Saddam isn't a bad guy, why not wait a century before the UN can authorise a war against him?"


I don't like Bush, but I do like his determined attitude. Sure, he speaks like a moron, and he doesn't understand how to lie, or diplomatic tact, but his actions are worth it.

Some people compare Hitler to Bush. I compare Saddam to Hitler. Saddam invaded and conquered Kuwait - as Hitler conquered Poland. Saddam made claims of "living space" and "national territory" to back up his invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Didn't Hitler say something about "living space"?


Imagine what happened if Saddam hadn't been stopped.

Another 1 million Iraqis executed?
Another 10 years of torture and rape?
Another decade of Saddam's propaganda? ("America is living in immense poverty, and Iraq is a paradise! Heil Saddam!")
Another claim on Kuwait, "Reich Territory"?

Do you support any of this?

How many Iraqis have died in the war with the US? Compare this with the amount of Iraqis who died under Saddam's regime. The lesser of 2 evils, as the French said when they voted for Chirac over Le Pen the fascist. Isn't the deaths of a few hundred Iraqi civilians (most of them caused by suicide bombers) lesser than the deaths of 1 million Iraqis by Saddam's hand?



For those of you claiming the US is invading Iraq for the oil, well guess what? The Europeans happen to be against the invasion for OIL too!. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/17...17/russia.iraq/<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[LiveAndLetLive]

Saddam may well be Hitler. This would make Bush FDR. The question for me is, is being FDR the right thing to do. In context of war, let's establish a few things:

1) A little known fact is that Hitler in the 30s attempted to deport Jews to the US. FDR turned those Jews BACK to Germany. The wrong thing, as those people were likely put back into concentration camps and may have been among those executed.

2) FDR taunted the Japanese through a variety of economically aggressive acts, such as refusing to trade with them things like oil. Maybe this was justified, maybe not. I'm certain that FDR did not have the power under the Constitution to do so. I believe FDR wanted an excuse to enter WWII, as the American people had wished to remain neutral.

3) Germany did declare war against the US. However, was FDR under any obligation to attack Germany, to send troops to Europe? Not necessarily. Simply because Germany declared, the US COULD have simply beefed up our defenses on and around our shores.

4) The US allied with the USSR and Stalin. It's historical fact that Stalin killed as many and perhaps more Ukrainians than Hitler killed Jews. It's known as the forced starvation of the Ukraine, with an estimated 10M dying a slow and agonizing death at Stalin's behest.

So, if FDR had showed restraint, what might have happened? It seems plausible that the Continent of Europe would have been embroiled in a titanic battle by two of the most vicious men in the modern era, Hitler and Stalin. They may have battled for years and years. Napolean, like Hitler, met his match in the Russian winters. This is, for sure, quite terrible, but perhaps they would have weakened BOTH fascism and communism's chief exponents so much that neither would have prevailed in any meaningful sense. And who knows if the Holocaust would have happened at all, as Hitler didn't call for gassing until late in the US drive toward Germany.

By taking sides with Stalin, however, communism got a big boost. Eastern Europe and China came under Stalin's control. Mao perpetrated the "Cultural Revolution," and more innocent people died meaningless deaths.

So, this is a long way of saying that direct confrontation against tyrants is not always the right thing to do. The unintended consequences can often be WORSE than the stopping of a tyrant. Bush has "stepped in it" in Iraq. It's pretty clear that our motives were not "pure" and "clear"; there was no "clear and present danger" as is the Constitution's requirement for things like war. In the process, many innocents have died, as well as American troops.

Were I advising Bush, I would have counseled against war. I might have suggested that the UN, with US prompting, launch an assertive not non-aggressive "military quarantine" of Iraq...as a rogue nation, Iraq would be isolated from the world, nothing comes in or out. Unlike trade embargoes, this would be backed up with troops, ships, and aircraft ringing Iraq. Perhaps this is difficult to achieve, and likely it would not be a perfect blockade.

But this may well have been the right thing to do. It's the right way to deal with tyrants who seem bent on exporting fear and death from their countries. IF they attack the blockade, then the US and the world is within its rights to suppress the tyrant more assertively, but not until then, I suggest.

Bob

[tusaki]

First of all: anti-war is not pro-Saddam. The first is related to the reasons why a country should go to war on another country. The latter is related to the support of a dictator which killed and suppressed many.

I disagree mostly with the reasoning for going to war, but I'm glad Saddam is gone. I find the comparison of Hitler with anyone unjustified and he is used only as a scapegoat to give someone’s argument more false support. The reason why this should have gone trough the UN is because we had this system in place to prevent any country from having such devastating effects as Germany during WW2 or even Napoleon during 1796-1815. Attempts were made then as well to create an international organization where such disputes should be argued, settled and as a the last resort: war.

This was the first time since the creation of the UN that a prominent country unilatery started a war without going through the UN. This is dangerous and shattered the carefully build up international system which ensures stability.

If the argument for going to war is Humanitarian, why isn't the US going after.. err.. most of Africa, North Korea, Myanmar, some countries in Latin America and I'm sure I forgot a few. I think the reason for going to war was not Humanitarian, it was only used to rally support among the people. And now it is used to 'save what can be saved'. I do however, believe that Bush and his government, at least partly, believed Saddam had WMD and could use it or sell it. Mostly sell it, since Saddam didn't have any long-distance missiles.

I do not blame Bush for going after Saddam, I blame him for doing it the way he did it. And I'm sure the fact they the US did it alone will stroke the ego's of a few patriotic Americans, but there is a reason we have these organizations. Have we forgotten so soon?

[LiveAndLetLive]

Tusaki,

I do believe we're in agreement, then. I actually agree that Saddam doesn't equal Hitler, it wasn't my point, it was someone else's. I picked it up and used it for illustrative purposes.

LiveAndLetLive aka Bob

[tusaki]

LiveAndLetLive: it was more of a general comment than a response to your post :) but yes, I do think we are in agreement.

[Samildanach]

Bush said what he needed to say to get a war going...after all people like a war president and he hoped with the election coming up he would look better if he had won a war. You have to remember this is not about the actual war its just all electioneering tactics.
September 11th etc was unfortunate but realistically the taliban had nothing to do with IRAQ and Saddam but he needed to show he could do something or else look impotent, he needs to show hes a strong president so he linked the Osama to Iraq to have something to strike against. Next the plan was he wins a war looks good to the country and the next thing you know hes president again...I think that was the plan but I'm really not sure if its going to work. The rest of the excuses/justifications are just bollocks really.