"With Saddam, I saw far to many similarities with Adolph Hitler.  He was constantly trying to grab more power, and always tried to shift the blame internally to minorities, who were persecuted and slaughtered.  And just like Hitler, he would promise peace, and at the same time trying to figure out how to get more power/territory/weapons.

Right before WWII, Nevlile Chamberlain came home with a document which promised "Peace In Our Time".  That was in 1938.  A year later, England was at war with Germany.  If the Allies had been more firm with Hitler, tens of millions of live may have been saved."

well, of course, the hitler bugaboo is trotted out every time the politicians decide there's another war they'd like to have. saddam hussein was almost entirely UNLIKE hitler. in the late 30s hitler had the most powerful military the world had ever seen, whereas hussein had balsa wood planes and a country decimated by 12 years of brutal sanctions. whereas hitler was a psychotic zealot single-minded in his drive to exterminate people whom he saw as subhuman from the face of the earth, the will and means to enact his perverse dream, and an unwillingness to negotiate or compromise, hussein was a tinpot dictator interested solely in his personal profit and wellbeing and willing to capitulate to whomever made him the best offer. and of course, the big one -- whereas hitler was a perverse outcropping of the treaty of versailles and the long-standing ostracism of the german nation after world war i, hussein was actually a lackey and agent of western interest and influence all during the formative years of his reign and throughout the 80s, when he was basically an extension of US foreign policy in his war against fundamentalist iran. so hussein and hitler were both utterly reprehensible, but beyond this they're actually much more like opposites.

but the hitler thing is real handy for mobilizing people to any and all wars whatever that the US politicians decide they might want to indulge in at any given time. quaddafi, carlos the jackyl, noriega, the sandinistas, all of these and many more were marketed as the new hitler at one time or another.

No, I have not been involved with the army.

well, of course, the hitler bugaboo is trotted out every time the politicians decide there's another war they'd like to have. saddam hussein was almost entirely UNLIKE hitler.


Tell that to the Kurds.


in the late 30s hitler had the most powerful military the world had ever seen, whereas hussein had balsa wood planes and a country decimated by 12 years of brutal sanctions.


And Hitler should have been stopped even before then.  If the Allies had been firmer earlier, they could have stopped him from becomming so large.  When he annexed Austria and remilitarized the Rineland, he was fully prepared to pull out if they forced the issue.  But nobody did anything, so he kept going until the Treaty of Versailles was meaningless.

And Iraq did use chemical weapons in the 1980's and 1990's.  In fact, a lot of indicators are now pointing to "Gulf War Syndrome" is actually the side effects of chemical weapons.  And in 1990, Iraq had the 3rd or 4th largest military in the world.  And the sanctions were so brutal, that is why we had "Oil For Food", right?


whereas hitler was a psychotic zealot single-minded in his drive to exterminate people whom he saw as subhuman from the face of the earth, the will and means to enact his perverse dream, and an unwillingness to negotiate or compromise, hussein was a tinpot dictator interested solely in his personal profit and wellbeing and willing to capitulate to whomever made him the best offer.


Once again, tell that to the Kurds.  As well as the Druze, the Shia, and every other minority that was persecuted and slaughtered during his reign.  Mass graves do not lie.


and of course, the big one -- whereas hitler was a perverse outcropping of the treaty of versailles and the long-standing ostracism of the german nation after world war i, hussein was actually a lackey and agent of western interest and influence all during the formative years of his reign and throughout the 80s, when he was basically an extension of US foreign policy in his war against fundamentalist iran. so hussein and hitler were both utterly reprehensible, but beyond this they're actually much more like opposites.


Oh yes, that's right.  That is why he flew Soviet jets, use Soviet tanks, and fired Soviet weapons.  And his political hero was...  Joseph Stalin.  Saddam played us off against the Soviet Union, to get whatever he could.  And we did not just give him a blank check.  Like France, we sold him things.  If you consider that as a "puppet", then why did he not buy all of his arms from us?

And if he was such a puppet, how do you explain the USS Stark?  That was in 1987, 3 years before the Gulf War.


but the hitler thing is real handy for mobilizing people to any and all wars whatever that the US politicians decide they might want to indulge in at any given time. quaddafi, carlos the jackyl, noriega, the sandinistas, all of these and many more were marketed as the new hitler at one time or another.


Now I am sorry, but this is making me ill.  This is almost like listening to an excuse to why genocide is excuseable.

Do you not think Lockerbee Scotland was a crime against humanity?  That was funded by Lybian terrorists.

Do you not feel horror and revulsion every time they find another mass grave in Iraq?  DO you not want to see the people responsible for that punished?

Carlos was a tool for Palestinian terrorists.  He wanted to see anything related to Israel and the "royal families" in the Middle East destroyed.  And the same countries whose rulers he wanted to kill provided him sanctuary, because he hated Israel more then he hated them.  Carlos was responsible for some of the bloodiest attacks in the 1970's.

And there is a huge difference though between many of those you listed.  Unlike Hitler and Saddam, none of them left behind untold numbers of mass graves, filled with the bodies of hundreds of thousands of people.  None of them used chemical weapons on their own people, and against another country.

But nobody did anything, so he kept going until the Treaty of Versailles was meaningless.


I'm certainly not a Hitler defender, but I'm even more certainly not a fan of the Treaty of Versailles. It was a sham of a treaty, which put the war guilt entirely upon the citizens of Germany, instead of on the backs of the Emporor and his cronies, or upon the backward elitism and imperialism of Austria-Hungary. Instead, it demoralised and humiliated a proud German people, and created a desperate environment where it was easy for someone like Hitler to take control. He got their trust because he was able to return the German nation from a state of complete disparity to once again an industrial, economic, and military power. The end did not justify the means, and I'm not defending him, but please don't sit there and try to hold up the Treaty of Versailles as something respectable, for there was hateful sentiment behind it. It set the stage for WW2, and thankfully after WW2 was over and Germany stood destroyed once again, the allies knew better than to make the same mistake they did with that treaty. They chose to rebuild Germany and make them long-lasting allies instead of bitter enemies, and it has paid off with today's friendly, peaceful, yet powerful Federal Republic of Germany, committed to democracy, social responsibility, and freedom.

Some could argue that Bush is like Hitler. Invading countries, promoting torture, power hungry etc, etc.


Ok, you can now call me "unpatriotic".  ::)




Cat

yeah, i dunno, mushroom. like i say, the hitler thing is the oldest trick in the book. and this is such an old conversation, i've had it a million times with various war apologists. almost all the atrocities you cite were during a time when the reagan administration took a highly conciliatory, if not outright friendly, stance toward iraq. they knew about the gassing of the iranians during the war, and could have cared less. in public they had a few half-hearted scolding words for hussein, and meanwhile they were selling hussein chemical weapon precursors. administration people talked about the iranians and iraqis "bleeding each other white" in a war that the US was funding and abetting on both sides. so honestly, any pretense of moral outrage on the part of people who support practices like this, it affects me not at all. not at all. you're pitching stones out of a glass house that's already full of cracks.

anyway, that's part of the whole "x is just like hitler" rhetorical device, to make it impossible to even question a particular given war -- and typically the feigned moral outrage serves to disguise the fact that the logical argument for the war being thus justified is prespammersite in the extreme. was iraq ever a viable military opponent to the united states? of COURSE not. it was a massacre in 1991, and it was a massacre in 2003. and it continues to be a massacre, the US is killing probably ten people on the "other side," military and civilian, for every american death. it's a rout. that it continues to drag on is a political problem rather than a military one; the administration has no solution or exit strategy, but in military terms, comparing the war in iraq with the war with hitler is, again, completely unfounded. the outcome in iraq was never in doubt, but in the early days of WWII -- 40 to early 43, namely -- it was far from assured who would be victorious.

and again, the fact that someone is likened to hitler approximately every 24 months in this country, this extremely warlike and jingoistic country, should give us pause. aren't we a bit like charlie brown, falling for lucy's story every time, even though every time, she pulls away the football at the last minute? how many more times are we gonna buy the whole "hitler of the week" gag? seriously?

While all this Hitler/Sadam stuff is really tangential, I just gotta throw in my 2 cents, especially re the Munich Accords.  It is my view that the whole idea was to turn Hitler to the east in his search for "libenstram".  Remember, the depression was on, there were facsist movements in every industrial state, including the US (Henry Ford supported both Hitler and Mossilini f/e).  The mood was pacifist in the western democracies.  There was no political support for war, or even a show of force.  So when silly old Nevil got off that plane and said "peace in our time" what he neglected to add was "in the west".  Let Hitler ans Stalin fight it out.  But Stalin was to cagey and countered with the Ribontrof-Moletove treaty dividind Poland, which England was pledged to defend - oops.

As to Sadam, yes, he did, apparantly, use WMDs against the Kurds and the Iranians, WMDs  that Ronny  Reagan not only allowed him to develop but helped him develop.  And there is a strong case to be made that the US Embassy in Iraq gave Sadam the green light to invade Kiwait as well.  What I can't figure is why we turned against him.  Why did we set him up?  I'm not saying he was a nice man, quite the opposite, but that has never been a consideration in our foriegn policy.  G.H.W.Bush's reasoning on this one really baffles me.

And there is a strong case to be made that the US Embassy in Iraq gave Sadam the green light to invade Kiwait as well.  What I can't figure is why we turned against him.  Why did we set him up?  I'm not saying he was a nice man, quite the opposite, but that has never been a consideration in our foriegn policy.  G.H.W.Bush's reasoning on this one really baffles me.


I never accepted this "theory".

I mentioned before the USS Stark.  What a lot of people do not remember is that it was in the Gulf to protect Kuwait oil tankers.  The Iran-Iraq war spread to the point that any tanker in the region was a target to be attacked.  Iran and Iraq were both targeting any tanker they found.

And Kuwait has long had a defense treaty with the US, and with England.  One of the largest oil companies in England is "Q8" after all.  I simply can't accept that the US would ever allow Iraq to take over Kuwait.  Even if we allowed it, England would never have allowed it.  And because so much of their oil comes from Kuwait, we would have been pulled in because the invasion would have been a strategic threat to England.

I think the "Green Light" that Saddam thought he had was much the same as President Bush Senior had from Japan, when the Prime Minister said he would "think about" correcting trade imballances.  In Japan, "I'll think about it" is a polite way of saying "no".  The same phrase in the US normally means it will be considered.  The difference in meaning was lost in translation.

the USS Stark was in the Gulf to protect Kuwait oil tankers.  One of the largest oil companies in England is "Q8" after all.  I simply can't accept that the US would ever allow Iraq to take over Kuwait.  Even if we allowed it, England would never have allowed it.  And because so much of their oil comes from Kuwait, we would have been pulled in because the invasion would have been a strategic threat to England.

are you claiming, sir, that the war in iraq is about OIL? i simply cannot bring myself to believe that. the war in iraq is about WMD AND FREEDOM FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

l
o
l

i'm outta here. i'm gonna argue with the battlestar galactica apologists. this iraq scam is so obvious, dude, it's embarrassing.

enjoy your war. approximately 300 billion dollars and counting. ka-ching.

are you claiming, sir, that the war in iraq is about OIL? i simply cannot bring myself to believe that. the war in iraq is about WMD AND FREEDOM FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE.


No, not at all.  Read into what I said in total, not just one part of it.

We have had a long-standing mutual defense treaty with Kuwait.  In the same way we had such a treaty with South Korea and South Vietnam.  And I was talking about the First Gulf War, not the second.  That is like trying to combine WWI and WWII into one conflict.  They are 2 different wars, with 2 different causes.

The first Gulf War was to liberate an ally.  It was required because of treaty, and was enforcing a UN sanction.  Even if we did not have the treaty, we probably would have been dragged in.  This is because the strategic resource of an ally was threatened.  Because it was oil was irrelevant.  If the resource of this ally was food, we would have been equally involved.  This is because of our long standing treaties with England.  Remember, we got involved with England in the Isla Malvinas conflict, even though it was against our own interest.  That "involvement" is still affecting our relations with Argentina.

The second Gulf War is much more complex.  And in many ways it parallels the 2 World Wars.  You have a country that refuses to follow the conditions of the cease fire.  It continues to act beligerantly to those that are trying to keep it to those agreements.  And you also had a complete failure of the International Body in taking action to uphold those agreements (Leage Of Nations in WWII, UN in this one).  Although I do not know of any cases where Germany paid off huge amounts of money to any members of the League.

And this time, you had mass killings before the following war, not during and afterwards.

To me, the ultimate cause of Gulf War II is the UN.  The corruption in the UN meant that Iraq would never be forced to follow the UN sanctions and the cease fire agreements.  If anything, I think the greed in the UN (because of the oil) lead to their corruption, and made another war inevitable.

well, i dunno what to tell you. i think the WWII comparisons are basically farcical, frankly. you haven't really addressed sufficiently why the same administration officials who were very conciliatory toward iraq in the beginning suddenly had their change of heart and decided that hussein, who was expansionist in iran with the blessings of the u.s., suddenly changed their tune when hussein invaded kuwait. i mean, yes, there are treaty obligations but then why did april glaspie, ambassador to iraq, say that the u.s. didn't have a dog in that fight, when it became clear hussein intended to invade kuwait? i'm sure you've heard that story. i think it's really that the u.s. wants to maintain a military presence in the region and it was having a difficult time maintaining its bases in saudi arabia. i believe i heard those bases are mostly or all closed up now. so hussein's invasion of kuwait was a handy pretext to move in to the region militarily.

as for the current war, it was a flat-out act of military aggression on the part of the bush administration. and much or most of the world seems to see it that way. perception of the u.s. is at a low ebb. people are scared of this country, and with good reason. we look belligerent, indifferent to international consensus, and, frankly, like a danger to world stability. so you can have your war, but you get to own the consequences. when it keeps getting worse and worse over there, let's not hear any of this rhetoric like we heard at the end of vietnam -- that if it weren't for the liberals holding us back, we would have won. because i'm anticipating that, even with republicans owning all three branches of government, something like that's gonna be coming down the pike in the next couple years as this horrid thing drags on and keeps dragging the country down.