|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Saddam was most powerful and most dangerous in the days before the first Gulf War when he was our ally. In the days since his army was instantaneously humiliated and obliterated after that war, he became less of a threat-not more of a threat. If we didn't feel justified in taking him out after the first gulf war, we had no justification in taking him out now.
When was the last time that Iraq successfully attacked any country? When was the last time that Iraq invaded or attempted to invade any country? What evidence is there that Saddam intended to attack any other country in the near future?When was the last time that Iraq was a major world power?
Don't forget, when Hilter came to power, he didn't inherit a blank slate. In 1933, Germany had a recent history of being a belligerent & powerful nation with ambitions of conquering the large part of the free world and it had only been 16 years since they had very nearly pulled it off - after routing some of the best armies from some of the most powerful countries on earth.
Comparing Iraq and Saddam to Germany and Hitler shows a naive and shockingly ingnorant awareness of recent world history.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
I'm sorry that you feel the body count isn't high enough for Hussein's regime to make the "club". Perhaps if we gave him another 5-10 years to fully bring forth his nuclear and biological weapon ambitions then he would have met your criteria...
Do you seriously consider Hitler's "body count" to be irrelevant when discussing his legacy and his impact on world affairs?
I would put Stalin in the same club as Hitler, maybe even Tojo. Saddaam was an incompetent amateur compared to these guys.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
it's irresponsible to try and pass saddam/iraq off as an expanding threat on the level of a hitler lead germany. there is no comparison.
i guess we can also say the terrorist won by forcing the US to start a war that's turning into a cascading and escalating worldwide conflict.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by BP:
it's irresponsible to try and pass saddam/iraq off as an expanding threat on the level of a hitler lead germany. there is no comparison.
.
Why is it irresponsible? Because Saddam never got a chance to reach the level that Hitler got to? Or is it purely partisan politics?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by BP:
it's irresponsible to try and pass saddam/iraq off as an expanding threat on the level of a hitler lead germany. there is no comparison.
I disagree. On a conventional level, perhaps it holds water, but Hussein had a demonstrated and long-standing desire to obtain nuclear weapons (never mind chem/bio), and whether his scientists built the things or he obtained them through another source, as long as he had a nation-state in which to hide activities, it was a tremendous risk.
Sure, for nukes we've got North Korea to contend with, and potentially Iran, but knocking down the Hussein regime most certainly gave those nations pause, and also most certainly led to Libya voluntarily putting an end to its own programs and embracing UN inspections. I think Iran's waffling between trying to continue its program and following the Libyan lead, myself, but even if they don't, we still have gotten a two-for-one elimination of hostile nations attempting to develop WMD.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
...Comparing Iraq and Saddam to Germany and Hitler shows a naive and shockingly ingnorant awareness of recent world history.
LMAO! Some people really need to learn to read more carefully. Never did I (nor would I) compare Iraq and Nazi Germany as political entities. Quit putting words in my mouth.
What I DID do, though, is to compare the actions of both dictators to each other.
School is now in session...
Rose from modest beginnings:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Dark-haired, moustached, married:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Plotted to overthrow current government in younger years:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Jailed for doing so:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Started out as a low-ranking party member:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Touted socialist nationalism in their early years:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Staged coups that ultimately elevated them to power:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Nationalized industries in order to expand power base:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Betrayed and killed allies who would ultimately be rivals in their climb to power:
Saddam, yes ('78 Election, I belive). Hitler, yes (Night of Long Knives).
Ethnic/religious hatred towards one or more groups:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Genocide of those same groups:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Belligerent and aggressive foreign policy that lead to annexations and ultimately armed conflict with neighbors:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Engaged in chemical warfare:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Admired by the US at one point in time:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes (Time's Man of the Year in 1938).
Controlled press, speech and assembly during dictatorship:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Established elite guard unit fanatical to their wishes:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Held one of the top 5 military forces in terms of size at height of power:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Made horrible strategic miscalculations during war:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Got their asses handed to them by US and British troops:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes.
Had supporters in France during the war:
Saddam, yes. Hitler, yes (Petain Govt.)
Finally, Hitler didn't inherit a blank slate: he took posession of a smoldering WRECK. Germany was reeling from the terms of the Versailles treaty and the Great Depresion sunk her further into the dregs of uncontrolled bankruptcies, mass unemployment and national despair. Any history book, if you care to crack it open, will tell you this in VOLUMNOUS detail...
Thanks for playing!
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
because he was no where near to, or even on the way to, amassing the power that hitler had. iraq was in terrible condition prior to the attack. they had no real army, their infrastructure was in shambles, no proven connection to bin laden... however "if left unchecked" is the statement that seems to be on repeat. iraq was less of a threat to us than n.korea. but of course jong-il is a better person than hussein. 
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
I disagree. On a conventional level, perhaps it holds water, but Hussein had a demonstrated and long-standing desire to obtain nuclear weapons (never mind chem/bio), and whether his scientists built the things or he obtained them through another source, as long as he had a nation-state in which to hide activities, it was a tremendous risk.
You have nailed it entirely on the head.
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Sure, for nukes we've got North Korea to contend with, and potentially Iran, but knocking down the Hussein regime most certainly gave those nations pause, and also most certainly led to Libya voluntarily putting an end to its own programs and embracing UN inspections. I think Iran's waffling between trying to continue its program and following the Libyan lead, myself, but even if they don't, we still have gotten a two-for-one elimination of hostile nations attempting to develop WMD.
Full marks, again. Now that extremist nations understand that it's not entirely out of sight or mind that what we did in Iraq is a repeatable excercise for the US, one should notice the IMMENSE lack of sabre-rattling from N. Korea, Iran and Syria. Libya? Mommar K. has "opened the kimono"; no longer are they the wildcard they used to be.
Can someone say results?
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
there have been more terrorist attacks around the world since the war started than before. results you say? ok.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Oh, God is the ignorance showing today!
In terms of number, NO. There have been fewer. Check your tallies since Clinton was in office, and we aren't just talking about the US here, either. I'm talking globally...
In terms of casualties caused per attack, yes. I would fully agree with you there.
Try again...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
