Hussein/Iraq vs Hitler/Germany (yes, again)

[Ozric Tentacles]

This link (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030317/opinion/17john.htm) directs you to a John Leo column that I think shows the comparisons btwn Hussein and Hitler a bit more clearly than I had read in the past. Obviously, Hussein is not EXACTLY like Hitler, but the current circumstances do show quite a few parallels to what had been going on in the late 1930s.

Thoughts?

[Guerilla poster]

Wouldn't Stalin be a better comparison?

[Griffin 3]

Stalin would be a much better comparison. That way, Gp culd ask "Why take military action against Saddam when we didn't against Stalin?"

[Triweasel]

I agree. I think Hussein has modeled his life after Stalin.

[Han Solo]

Sure there are valid points of comparison, but where I usually have a problem when people bring this up is that the appeasement practiced in the late 30s' consisted of letting Hitler annex whatever he wanted - Austria, the Sudetenland, etc...

When Saddam tried to annex another country - Kuwait - we didn't just stand by and appease him, we kicked his butt outa there.

[Guerilla poster]

No, i already no the answer to that. I am not like you. I only ask questions if I truly don't know the answer.

[Griffin 3]

No, i already no the answer to that. I am not like you. I only ask questions if I truly don't know the answer.Don't say too many things like that or mocha will show up and start accusing you of believing that you have telepathy.

[Paddyboy1]

Sure there are valid points of comparison, but where I usually have a problem when people bring this up is that the appeasement practiced in the late 30s' consisted of letting Hitler annex whatever he wanted - Austria, the Sudetenland, etc...

When Saddam tried to annex another country - Kuwait - we didn't just stand by and appease him, we kicked his butt outa there.

Not exactly. When Saddam tried to annex Iran, we gave him weapons and increased our foreign aid to him.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Sure there are valid points of comparison, but where I usually have a problem when people bring this up is that the appeasement practiced in the late 30s' consisted of letting Hitler annex whatever he wanted - Austria, the Sudetenland, etc...

When Saddam tried to annex another country - Kuwait - we didn't just stand by and appease him, we kicked his butt outa there.

Not exactly. When Saddam tried to annex Iran, we gave him weapons and increased our foreign aid to him.But that's different.

[fallout]

Sure there are valid points of comparison, but where I usually have a problem when people bring this up is that the appeasement practiced in the late 30s' consisted of letting Hitler annex whatever he wanted - Austria, the Sudetenland, etc...

When Saddam tried to annex another country - Kuwait - we didn't just stand by and appease him, we kicked his butt outa there.

Not exactly. When Saddam tried to annex Iran, we gave him weapons and increased our foreign aid to him.

Was that at around the same time that Iran took Americans as hostages?

This is the same logic chain that has people thinking Saddam would give weapons to the terrorists. A common enemy creates strage friends.

[George W Bush]

Fallout is right. It was natural and probably the right thing to do for the US to support Iraq in the 80's. Curbing muslim fundys was the goal. Why we gave him anthrax and other technology that allowed him to make weapons of mass destruction is another question however.

[Paddyboy1]

No, this is where you're wrong on a number of levels. Having a goal, like curbing Muslim fundamentalists does not justify specific actions. Couldnt we pretend we are "curbing terrorism" and just leave it at that, with a blank check to intervene in any muslim country? No For example, we did *not* curb Iranian fundamentalism in fact we exacerbated it and we have terrorism and wars to show for it. Number 2 is that our support for Saddam and his party was both before and after the Iranian hostage-taking and after the war with Iran ended.

[fallout]

No, this is where you're wrong on a number of levels. Having a goal, like curbing Muslim fundamentalists does not justify specific actions. Couldnt we pretend we are "curbing terrorism" and just leave it at that, with a blank check to intervene in any muslim country? No For example, we did *not* curb Iranian fundamentalism in fact we exacerbated it and we have terrorism and wars to show for it. Number 2 is that our support for Saddam and his party was both before and after the Iranian hostage-taking and after the war with Iran ended.

I am not saying I am in favor of ever giving anyone WMDs. The less of them, that everyone esle has, the better. I do however claim that the US helping someone fight against an enemy of the US, is in fact an admirable goal of the foreign policy of the US.

Sure it would be better not to have any enemies, but since those are inevitable, and thus foreign policy and a military is inevitable, helping fight common enemies is a step in the right direction. If your argument is we need to pick our friends better, this is obvious. Monday morning quarterbacking always solves the world's problems.

[fallout]

Sure there are valid points of comparison, but where I usually have a problem when people bring this up is that the appeasement practiced in the late 30s' consisted of letting Hitler annex whatever he wanted - Austria, the Sudetenland, etc...

When Saddam tried to annex another country - Kuwait - we didn't just stand by and appease him, we kicked his butt outa there.

But given ther current level of technology and the devolopment of WMD and chemical agents, a modern day hitler is far more dangerous than an olden day one. In the old days a dictator had to line up forces and "tip his hand" before an attack. In today's world, a bio weapon snuck over in a suitcase can kill 1,000's and the agrieved party could not even know who had done the attacking.

[Triweasel]

No, this is where you're wrong on a number of levels. Having a goal, like curbing Muslim fundamentalists does not justify specific actions. Couldnt we pretend we are "curbing terrorism" and just leave it at that, with a blank check to intervene in any muslim country? No For example, we did *not* curb Iranian fundamentalism in fact we exacerbated it and we have terrorism and wars to show for it. Number 2 is that our support for Saddam and his party was both before and after the Iranian hostage-taking and after the war with Iran ended.

I am not saying I am in favor of ever giving anyone WMDs. The less of them, that everyone esle has, the better. I do however claim that the US helping someone fight against an enemy of the US, is in fact an admirable goal of the foreign policy of the US.

Sure it would be better not to have any enemies, but since those are inevitable, and thus foreign policy and a military is inevitable, helping fight common enemies is a step in the right direction. If your argument is we need to pick our friends better, this is obvious. Monday morning quarterbacking always solves the world's problems.

It certainly couldn't hurt, especially if you are looking toward next Sunday's game.