|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
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.
I wonder why he could be considered an amateur in light of the others listed?
Because we never gave him the chance to further up the ante...
Thank you for further slamming this point home.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by BP:
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. 
Translation: I hate Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 750
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 750 |
Originally posted by www.cnn.com:
Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Monday he wanted the 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq to return home by June 30 if the United Nations "doesn't take control of Iraq."
Finally! Someone has the balls to actually enforce UN participation! He is the man.
Btw if there are at least a dozen other coutries with stronger proven ties to Al-Q or a dozen other with actually working WMD programs then why does it have to be Iraq ?
Tiv
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Hooray! Given the UN's resounding success in Bosnia (please note the EXTREME use of sarcasm), I can't wait to see what they can pull off in Iraq... Are you forgetting the fact that a few years back the UN allowed the US to be voted off the Human Rights panel by no less than China, Libya, Sudan and a few other of the worst Human Rights offenders on the damn planet? This is the group you are cheering to roll into Iraq and take over administrative functionality and governing tasks until Iraq can get on their feet? I know it will happen sometime, but I always viewed it like visiting the proctologist; something one wants to put off until there's no other choice... Actually, it is Al-Qaeda that would be enforcing UN participation. They read Spain's reaction to the bombing like a well-written script months in advance and merely yanked the strings at the appropriate time... Damn smart and crafty on their part, even though it sickens and pains me to admit it. So far, the Spanish population and the new Spanish PM have played right into their hands.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,039
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,039 |
Good grief.
96SE and BP....
The reason why Hitler got so big is because the U.S. and the rest of the world's attitude towards him was identical to what yours was to Saddam.
According to you, Saddam wasn't a real threat. Hitler wasn't considered a real threat either, hell, he even promised not to invade anybody (silly silly) and we believed him. When he got to power in the 20s, Germany was piss poor from losing WWI. And I mean PISS POOR. They not only lost the war, but they had to pay for it. I'll let you read up on the Treaty of Versailles to find out how fugged Germany was in the 1920s and 30s, just because of the treaty alone.
Fast forward 15 years, and Hitler violates the Treaty. 3 years later war starts.
So, in 18 years, Hitler managed go from a NOBODY to WWII.
Saddam is similar, but to his advantage:
-has oil, unlike Hitler
-has Anthrax and possibly WMDs, unlike Hitler
-has more money than Hitler
Sorry, not gonna stick around to find out what Saddam is capable of, nor do I wanna know if he could REALLY be compared to Hitler in terms of casualities. The similarities could then be endless.
But, I rest my case, seems like you guys and the UN were willing to give him as much time as he wanted, only to eventually find out WWIII has started. Oops.
Then, of course, you'd cry foul for us not taking action before all hell broke loose.
It's 1:30am, and I'm tired. This post could have been a lot better, or worse for that matter. 
-John
'98 4Runner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by PackRat:
Translation: I hate Bush.
i don't hate bush, hate would be too strong a word. i do think he's been manipulated by some of his 'team' into making some bad decisions though.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by PackRat:
Translation: I hate Bush.
i don't hate bush, hate would be too strong a word. i do think he's been manipulated by some of his 'team' into making some bad decisions though.
Well, you may not hate him, but you sure don't understand him.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
I just don't get it. How can anyone possibly conclude that Saddam Hussein was a GROWING threat to world peace in 2003?
Saddam Hussein came to power 25 years ago. Despite his best efforts, his war machine was never anything more than a bad joke. His officers were political hacks - incompetent and corrupt. Saddam has had his butt handed to him in every international conflict he has engaged in. Even with the assistance and approval of the United States, in using chemical weapons against Iran, Saddam still lost that war. (Anybody remember that? Anybody remember when we thought the use of chemical weapons was A-OK as long as they were used on the right people?)
Between 1979 and 2003, Saddaam Hussein was only able to put together a fourth rate military. Given this track record, how on earth can you conclude that but for our invasion in 2003, he would eventually have put togther a war machine that would have rivalled the Nazi war machine of the '30's and 40's?
The Iraqi army was helpless and hapless in 2003, as was its leadership. By comparing him to Hilter you minimize the terror and death and destruction that Hitler and His Nazis wrought on the world in less than 10 years.
Maybe, a more apt comparison would be Idi Amin - a cruel and merciless buffoon - but relatively harmless and inconsequential in the international scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
I just don't get it. How can anyone possibly conclude that Saddam Hussein was a GROWING threat to world peace in 2003?...
He said it FAR better than I did:
Originally posted by Jeb Hodge:
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.
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
The Iraqi army was helpless and hapless in 2003, as was its leadership. By comparing him to Hilter you minimize the terror and death and destruction that Hitler and His Nazis wrought on the world in less than 10 years
Again, Hussein's strength would never be (nor did he plan it to be) in conventional armaments after the '91 action...
Over 2 million dead as a result of Saddam and his policies it's still not clicking? It's simply sick to place a timeframe on genocide, cruelty and suffering just so one can politically "dismiss" the notion that Iraq under his control turned into the absolute quagmire of the Middle-East and suffered a population drain that can only be compared in 20th century annuals to those of Cambodia and Nazi Germany. This "who's stack of bodies is higher" qualification under "x" amount of time on the stopwatch is patently disgusting. Ranking Hussein and his evils with the mass insanity that Hitler's Nazi party propogated throughout Europe does NOTHING to minimalize anything; this is akin to arguing which pile of rotting carcasses stinks worse...
I'll never deny that Hitler is the measuring stick that all madmen and dictators are judged by, given the insanity he orchestrated in Europe, but Jesus, when one is talking about 7 figures worth of bodies that were sacrificed to prop up a regime like Hussein's, he DEMANDS to sit at the same table in Hell as Hitler.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667 |
Okay, so what was so pressing about Slobodon Milosevic in Serbia? Same situation... highly cruel, mass genocide, inept politics, but no realy threat to global politics/economics, only regional problem.
Were you singing the same song when Liberal GodChild Billy Clinton attacked Milosevic with our military? Doubtful.
Whether Hussein had international impact as a head of state is debatable, whether or not he harbored terrorists is less debatable, but as the supreme leader of a country, he certainly had far more than the simple capacity to become a world player just in terms of providing shelter and support to terrorist organizations, let alone the impact he could have on the oil supply.
I for one think that he did need to go, although I don't appreciate Bush's stretching of the truth (if the claims are indeed legitimate)
Diesel owns you
|
|
|
|
|
