He is generally know among Ricardians as “The Weasel”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9fGIDGqDM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Somerset,_1st_Earl_of_Worcester
Will anti-war protesters help Iraq + explain their position?
-
I wonder how many people who were frothing at the mouth about how wrong the US was will now actually do something other than protest? Will they travel to Iraq and try their rhetoric out on the people who suffered under Saddam. Will they say that more inspections then leaving Saddam in power was the way to go?
I wonder how many people who are such keen of getting that war will take up the guns and volunteer. Will they go to the mothers of the soldiers killed by friendly fire? Will they go and explain why this smart bomb still kills civilians?
Will they visit Iraq and help the reconstruction? Will they admit that their worst fears didn’t occur and that the result is better than what would have occured had nothing been done?
Will the ones who burned the house down pay for the firefighters? Or will they expect payment for the lighters they needed to burn it down?
When the media is shown the WPD devices and the world knows who umongst the ANTI-DOANYTHING camp will say they were wrong?
When the media comes up with “there are no SCUDs, these former messages have been false”, when no WMDs are found… will anyone of the empty warheads say they were wrong and deliver themselves to an international court?
Help those who wish to see to see. For those who wish to remain blind let them stumble about as the fools that they are. I will listen to you when you speak, but when you shout and lie I close my mind to you.
Didn’t you say something like “not every evidence is correct” somewhere else? WTF is the one shouting? Who is the one lieing, the protestors or warmogers? And you expect me to keep my mind open while saying you won’t listen to anything i say.
CC: Naaah, i prefer to pull back to my non-native status.
When I say “I will listen when you speak, but when you shout and lie I close my mind to you” you get “Protestors are shouting lying people who do not deserve to be listened to”. I find this most interesting. Not sure how you got this, I guess you must just believe something and adust the facts to suit your belief.
Hey BB, do you remember how often you though i called you a USie? I did that once explicitly, but you kept on raving on it when i did it implicitly. And that’s what you doing here. You either address us implicitly, or you are talking to your bedpost. And as i think you are sane enough to know that wod will not listen nor react, i assume that you address us implicitly.
It’s odd that you twisted everything I said yet never answered nor addressed the point that I was trying to make. You never listened to what I was saying. I’m patient, I want to try to understand the otherside, do you? I say I don’t want to listen to protesters who lie, you hear I don’t want to listen to protesters because they all lie. It’s easy enough to misunderstand the otherside when not trying, you seem to be trying to misunderstand me to further your opinions….
That is the point in tranlsating: You dont answer or address…. you translate.
And you said something like you will not listen to those that shour and lie. You never mentioned the protestors in that sentence. How should we know you meant them? If we assumed that, and were wrong in that assumption you surely would have tried to blame us for that. Remember that kind of thing already happened. For the isunderstandings: Wasn’t it you as well who said “perception makes reality”? If you don’t want to be misunderstood, then make yourself more clear.I dislike that you continually blame us for misunderstanding you either by interpreting too much or not enough into your words. If it was one of them continuusly, i could understand, but for me it seems both all teh time.
Logic is a great tool and exposes the superficial. Explain to me why not going to war is ‘more good’ then going to war.
‘Going to war’ always includes killings, suffer, pain. ‘Not going to war’ sometimes includes those. Unless you call killing, suffer and pain good, then i think the conclusion is evident.
A few regional conflicts would go nuclear, we’d let the French and Germans sort out the problems while N. America colonize mars…… Israel would nuke the arabs and since the US doesn’t pay off Israel anymore it wouldn’t be the fault of the US. India/Pakistan/China heck the entire area would have a few nuke exchanges then things would settle out. A much better world without a bully to enforce world order against UN wishes…
Wait, when will Canada have their first orbital rocket?
You have N.America in one line, then the US in all the next… do you wonder if someone takes you as USie then? You provoke that misunderstanding here.
For the rest… in your words:
prove it…I really wonder what some protesters are thinking when they call Bush a murderer and yet don’t mention Saddam or worse, blame Saddam’s actions on others.
…
However when I see people yelling out that “bush is evil” I have the overwhelming urge to ask the person. “So you’re in support of rape gangs, political murders and savage repression of others”.But you know the term “lesser of two evils”? That includes that there are two evils, and even if GWBs invasion is the lesser evil, it doesn’t make it “no evil”.
You say you hate people not thinking. I say i hate people seeing the world in black and white only. Wether we include each other in our “hates” is unspoken.For the rest of the thread:
I was kind of nearly laughing when i first heard the gossip of the turks going into Iraq. They would have lead the arguments of GWB ad absurdum.
For the humanitarian aspec tof the invasion: i have read somewhere that the US troops don’t have enough food and water to feed the Iraqi people more than two days max…. and that they need the help of UN and Red Cross etc utterly. Some polemic: Freedom doesn’t feed mouths. -
When the media comes up with “there are no SCUDs, these former messages have been false”, when no WMDs are found… will anyone of the empty warheads say they were wrong and deliver themselves to an international court?
No SCUDS? Why don’t you explain to the soldier sitting behind the Patriot missile battery shooting them out of the sky over Kuwait right now! :roll:
You seriously think we’re not going to find anything in Iraq?
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
No SCUDS? Why don’t you explain to the soldier sitting behind the Patriot missile battery shooting them out of the sky over Kuwait right now! :roll:
You seriously think we’re not going to find anything in Iraq?
Have a look at
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAN8XQ8MDD.html
On Saturday Maj.Gen. Stanley McChrystal talked of “no SCUDs” up to then. Whatever missiles were shot down before must have been something different then…. even though the gossip said “it’s been SCUDs”. (see for example http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_812138.htm
)That’s what i said in my line.
For the second: I don’t know. I have heard of a disguised factory. I wonder how you can instantly know that it’s been a chemical weapons facility … and not a biological, rocket, whatever armanment. This too quick analysis makes me doubt.
-
Since the US and Brit army is completely volunteer I’d assume that the footage of keen US and Brit troops are not complete lies. Those who are sending the soldiers are explaining the mothers.
Will the protesters explain why they prefer to keep mass rapists and mass murders in power?
Buring down someobodys house is a bit different from this situation. Let’s add that the house is owned and occupied by armed crack dealers. I’m going to burn down the house to get them out then rebuild the house. But the French want the crack dealers there because they supply the crack….
If they don’t find any WMD then some allied leaders should be tried by the Geneva and UN conventions. And if they do then the French leadership and everybody who was against this should be tried for supporting enemies of humanity, sounds fair to me… Perhaps we’d let the average protester go, they couldn’t be expected to sort out the truth from everything that has been said I will grant. But what about the people who knew Iraq was guilty and yet opposed the effort, say Chirac…
F_alk, I never said WTF is shouting, or lying. I am saying to those who do… Do put yourself automatically with the worst of those on the other side of my position :-)
Perhaps I am being too deep for some of you. I will be blunt, I am not accusing anyone from this forum of lying or yelling. I am saying that there are some on the other side of any arguement who do this.
Hey BB, do you remember how often you though i called you a USie? I did that once explicitly, but you kept on raving on it when i did it implicitly. And that’s what you doing here. You either address us implicitly, or you are talking to your bedpost. And as i think you are sane enough to know that wod will not listen nor react, i assume that you address us implicitly.
Of course not everything I say is addressed to you personally or anyone else involved in this thread…… Why should you assume when I say “some people on the other side are raving lunitics” that it does apply to anyone in this thread? No wonder you all get so defensive…
So I try to explain what I am saying and you get all pissy that you misunderstood me. shrugs. OK, you guys never misunderstood me, I am wrong and stupid and sometimes have a hard time conveying what I meant ummmmm I have bad breath and don’t often shave and you all are much smarter and way more wonderful and all that. Do you like this better? Can we now get to the real issues rather than attacking wordings?
I am sorry if you think that I blame all the misunderstandings on you guys, I am sorry that you dislike some things that I say.
F_alk, you said "‘Going to war’ always includes killings, suffer, pain. ‘Not going to war’ sometimes includes those. Unless you call killing, suffer and pain good, then i think the conclusion is evident. "
So are you saying war is always wrong? If yes then you are wrong as stoping hitler was not wrong. If no, then what you said really is sophistory and is not a logically true argument and this is a waste of time even typing it.
The north america colonizing mars was a joke… rolls eyes I use N. America to mean (Canada, the United States of America and Mexico). If you can’t follow the difference it is not my fault. N. America does not pay of Israel, the US does. N. America has a common trading block so I inculded them in my quip about going to Mars. shrugs I don’t think it’s too complex to figure it out…
I put all kinds of good stuff in my last post, you didn’t comment on any of it but rather concentrated on attacking my words without commenting on the overall meaning…
But I guess all the fault is on my shoulders and everybody else is perfect except for me… I have broad shoulders, I can take it.
There is too much blah blah blah, I’d rather have short and quick exchanged of ideas. Lets not get into multi-page posts. F_alk as far as I can tell you have seen not one thing you agree with from what I have said. I often wonder about people who can see nothing in common with the other side…
I don’t think any scuds have been launched yet. But nobody lied, they have always said “Either it was a scud or …”. Not exactly a lie but a bit too misleading for me.
BB
-
If the USA would retreat now, the result would be something nobody wanted, Saddam would be stronger than ever and bombs have allready delivered hatred.
It was wrong to start that war in the first place, but it’s too late to stop it now.
I must adimt that I’m not wholeheartly with the American troops. When I hear of Turks going to invade, when I hear of street fighting in Um Quatar and Basra, when I hear of Apaches downed, when I hear of riots in Cairo, I have to think, I said so, this war is a mistake. Let’s hope burning down the house, doesn’t set the whole quater on fire. -
We can debate the merits of the war but I do agree they really can’t stop now.
I have sure it’s the right thing to do but I do. That doesn’t mean I don’t pose the question to myself “What if you are wrong?”. I am skeptical by nature, I was often tossed out of my christian sunday school classes for debating (I was like 6 or 7, cut me some slack!). That is not to say I was rude, I just asked too many questions and wouldn’t drop it. I guess any religious ‘believer’ has a hard time explaining 150 million year old dinosaur bones but I digress.
I go through a thought process on it every day. I know there are going to be lots of items on the Nay side of the balance sheet. I see there are items on the Yay side. I convince myself everyday that this current course is the correct one. Some might think that having to convince oneself everyday is evidence of adherence to a wrong postion. I think not. I feel it better to force myself to go through this excercise everyday rather than adhere to a position I formed long ago and followed because one just ‘believes’ it to be the correct position.
I often start out with a premise stating that the opposite postion I hold is the correct one, then I break down the argument, point out what I feel are flaws (subjective no doubt) and prove to myself the opposite must be true or at least better.
I hope I am not wrong. I just can’t imagine that a year from now the situation will be worse.
BB
-
It was wrong to start that war in the first place, but it’s too late to stop it now.
I must adimt that I’m not wholeheartly with the American troops. When I hear of Turks going to invade, when I hear of street fighting in Um Quatar and Basra, when I hear of Apaches downed, when I hear of riots in Cairo, I have to think, I said so, this war is a mistake. Let’s hope burning down the house, doesn’t set the whole quater on fire.Good point that hopefully the political damage & chaos that has been unleashed will not spill over into other areas (though it probably will)…
This is not directed at Meiji, rather I’m using his statement of concern as a starting point…
I don’t agree that it was 100% “wrong” to start the war, because the so-called peace beforehand (which was really more of a semi-effective very porous siege situation than an actual peace) was also very wrong. Those on the far left easily forget that up until last week they were denouncing the UN sanctions & embargoes against Iraq as crippling & counterproductive (which they were), then someone steps in after 12 years to do something positive to end the standoff & now that is even more wrong because the person stepping in is an ultra-hawk right-wing Republican & its gotta be wrong 'cuz everything he does is wrong, right?]
OK so the UN sanctions & endless inspections were wrong & war vs. Hussein is wrong then what would be the right course of action? We could lift all the sanctions & welcome Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime back into the world’s good-'ol-boy network, let him buy all the weapons he wants with his people’s oil…but then of course when we were doing that in the 80’s well WHADDAYA KNOW?–that was wrong too!
I guess the only right course of action according to the ultra-left and the peaceniks would be to politely ask Saddam Hussein “Sir, will you please please please step down…” & hope he does. Otherwise, let’s just let him do whatever he wants…
Because Hussein will ONLY RESPOND TO FORCE.
Ozone27
-
The list of mistakes in the case of Iraq is long.
It was for sure wrong to built up Sadam in the first place.
It was wrong not to overthrow Sadam after he attacked Kuwait, at this time the support, among Europeans, among Arabians and among the Iraqis, would have been much higher.
It was wrong to try containing Sadam by sanctions, it simply didn’t work as it was suposed to.
It was wrong to haste into a war, ill prepared and with lacking support.It’s hard to say how to fix things broken as badly as this and problems as complicated as this are unlikely to have simple solutions. But if you think war is the solution you should take the time to convince your allies, to ensure you get the support you expect and to convince your opponents that you are not going to harm them.
Maybe I wouldn’t be a good leader, I rather think twice before I act, if you ask me for a quick simple solution I can’t tell you, I’m no man of deeds. If I play a game, my opponents sometimes complain, that I’m too slow, that I think too long, but in the end it’s often me who wins the game.
-
… But the French want the crack dealers there because they supply the crack…
cough cough cough It’s not like that the guy who now burns down the house told the dealer how to make crack, isn’t it? Why do you blame only the French again for something that the US have done the same way?
If they don’t find any WMD then some allied leaders should be tried by the Geneva and UN conventions.
Leagally, finding WMDs should not make any difference. Pragmatically seen, finding WMDs will “clean” any guilt by the US leaders.
And if they do then the French leadership and everybody who was against this should be tried for supporting enemies of humanity, sounds fair to me….
Accuse the US for supporting the Taliban, Iraq, Contras, etc etc?
Hey, a serious question: Was it ok to support an enemy of humanity to fight against another enemy of humanity (like Hitler and Stalin, they were even allied at some stage)? How can you decide which is the bigger enemy? Or do you decide that only by your own agenda, the opinions/polls of your people… ? Or is it simple “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”?Do put yourself automatically with the worst of those on the other side of my position :-)
Yup, i always assume the worst :)
F_alk, you said "‘Going to war’ always includes killings, suffer, pain. ‘Not going to war’ sometimes includes those. Unless you call killing, suffer and pain good, then i think the conclusion is evident. "
So are you saying war is always wrong? If yes then you are wrong as stoping hitler was not wrong. If no, then what you said really is sophistory and is not a logically true argument and this is a waste of time even typing it.
I should have said “starting a war” instead of “going to war” then. There is a fine difference in that.
I put all kinds of good stuff in my last post, you didn’t comment on any of it but rather concentrated on attacking my words without commenting on the overall meaning…
…
F_alk as far as I can tell you have seen not one thing you agree with from what I have said. I often wonder about people who can see nothing in common with the other side…Let’s say, we are even then, ok?
I don’t think any scuds have been launched yet. But nobody lied, they have always said “Either it was a scud or ……”. Not exactly a lie but a bit too misleading for me.
Well, the news was different over here. But, just as Ozone mentioned: Could have been the media who are not paying attention.
–-----------------------------------------------I think i agree quite a lot with Mejjing. Actually i cannot see any differences in the opinion from what he/she wrote. But, i can imagine that the situation can be much worse in a yera (in contrast to BB).
There are more consequences than the obvious Saddam-away-rebuild-Iraq.
One of the main concerns i have is the following (i have written that already somewhere, but i will repeat briefly):
North Korea provably has WMD and with medium probability a long-reach carreir system. They are not attacked by the US, no matter how “hard they try”. Iraq has no proven WMDs, and provably no long-reach carrier. They are attacked.
The US have also announced a change in their strategic paradigm, allowing for inventions were they see fit. The way the Iraq conflict evolves fits into this new strategy.
If i was a mediocre dictator, what would i do:
Get WMDs and long reach carriers ASAP or faster!
Good bye, Non-Proliferation. That is what i fear will happen, and the world won’t look better then. -
F_alk, the US never supported the Taliban directly. They supported all kinds of factions in Ahfganistan against the Soviets (the greater threat at the time I assure you). Once the soviets left, the US left, then years later the taliban emerged as the big kid on the block. So the US didn’t create nor support the taliban. Lets get the facts straight.
The US did support the B’aath party against a Soviet leaning governement long long ago. It about 10 years for Saddam to grab power. Again, the US didn’t exactly create Saddam either.
But so what?
Your point is what?
A) That since the US made mistakes before they should never do anything now since as a result of her past mistakes it proves she can do nothing right ergo this is a mistake as well?
B) The US created a mess in Iraq and should not ever clean up her messes?
These are brutally flawed arguments, sophistry at worst and irrelevant at best.
You claim that going to war is different then starting a war? So what exactly are you saying. That starting a war is always wrong? I see, so it’s best to watch a weak enemy get stronger and stronger, then watch it start to slaughter millions but you should do nothing because starting a war is always wrong?
I’m not clear what you are saying, I’m sure it’s obvious to everyone else but you know me…… Dumb dumb dumb as your thumb.
As for how you decide what is right or wrong. Simple.
Sitting on your ass watching Saddam cause 10, 000 deaths per month while planing future death and destruction is wrong.
Doing something that results in more good than harm is right.
Use occam’s razor, right and wrong are easier to spot then most people think.
BB
-
F_alk, the US never supported the Taliban directly.
I stand corrected.
The US did support the B’aath party against a Soviet leaning governement long long ago. It about 10 years for Saddam to grab power. Again, the US didn’t exactly create Saddam either.
“not exactly” is pretty vague, isn’t it? Who brought the Iraq the knowledge and capabilites to produce WMDs? Before and during the first Gulf War, the US was a big supporter of the Iraqi regime, and this support did not stop even after SH gassed his own people (not to talk of Irani soldiers during that war).
But so what?
Your point is what?My point is that you try to make the US look better than the French. A point i strongly disagree. Notice that this does not mean that i want to make the French look better than the US: both have an extensive list of “wrongdoing”.
You claim that going to war is different then starting a war? So what exactly are you saying. That starting a war is always wrong? I see, so it’s best to watch a weak enemy get stronger and stronger, then watch it start to slaughter millions but you should do nothing because starting a war is always wrong?
“starting a war” is firing the first shot, “going to war” includes replying to that attack.
@ War always wrong, doing nothing beforehand:
Kind of that. I know this scenario sounds like a dilemma. I assume that the “slaughter of millions” are the own people of that formerly “weak enemy”, right? So, you propose to go in on any country that you think is your enemy, that is weak, because at some stage this could change?
What if it doesn’t change your way, what if it stays weak, or the regime changes to the “better” from the inside? What if you see something as an “enemy”, but the people are content and happy with their regime?
I cannot see the future, i do not believe that my western culture is superior to every other, so that i have the right to promote this culture, be a missionary of it.
So, yes, i say, starting a war is always wrong.As for how you decide what is right or wrong. Simple.
Sitting on your a** watching Saddam cause 10, 000 deaths per month while planing future death and destruction is wrong.
Doing something that results in more good than harm is right.
Use occam’s razor, right and wrong are easier to spot then most people think.
Is it right to sacrifice 10 lifes to save one other life? Is it right to sacrifice one life to save one other life? Is it right to sacrificie one life for 10? for 100?
Who decides which lifes are “worth more” than others?Occam’s Razor… well, i don’t see the connection of “Plurality should not be posited without necessity” here. I see a necessity for more than black/white, right/wrong, good/evil. A “lesser evil” never is “good”, just because there is a “greater evil”. By the way i think you want me to use Occam’s Razor, i should cut away all things unnecessary, those in between the good/evil etc.
How do you define a fundamentalist, how do you define a fanatic? I would find that very interesting, because in my definition they use Occam’s Razor just the way i suppose you want me to. -
F_alk, nobody is forcing western culture on Iraq. Democracy and basic human rights are not unique to the west.
F_alk, you state that starting a war is always wrong. All I have to do is show an example that is contrary to that point to show your premise is flawed.
Attacking Germany in 1938 would have been better for the world rather than waiting for Germany to attack on Sept 1, 1939.
Of course the question is WHEN is it just to invade and yes, subjective decisions are the hardest of all.
I think the risk of making a mistake is lower then the risk of doing nothing and waiting to be attacked.
The old adage ‘the best defence is a good offence’ is true.
Your argument might make sense if it was the US forcing the French to save Iraqi lives. What gives France the right to prevent Americans from risking their lives to save Iraqis from Saddam? I am not saying the US has the right to trade 10 French for 100 Iraqis.
I don’t think Germans are genetically evil or any different from anybody else for that matter. Yet Germans by the millions willingly died to defend Hitler. The allies had to practically destroy Germany to get at Hitler yet nobody said it was wrong to kill german soldiers to accomplish this. (Dresden and carpet bombing of civilian targets on both sides excluded).
What gives people the right to do this? Often it’s the ability to do something and the willingness to do it.
You argue subtle semantics like that is the real issue. A lesser evil is not good compared to a greater evil. What kind of sophistory is this? A lesser evil is always better then a greater evil.
Let’s use Occams razor. You have a choice, less dead or more dead. Saddam = more dead.
What gave the allies the right to fight the Nazis?
BB
-
F_alk, nobody is forcing western culture on Iraq. Democracy and basic human rights are not unique to the west.
We agree on the basic human rights. But i don’t necessairly agree on the democracy part. I do not know of a genuine non-western style of democracy. Do you know one?
F_alk, you state that starting a war is always wrong. All I have to do is show an example that is contrary to that point to show your premise is flawed.
Attacking Germany in 1938 would have been better for the world rather than waiting for Germany to attack on Sept 1, 1939.
Germany starting the war was doing wrong. Wether the attack in1938 would have been better is unprovable. I could just state that it would have been worse, and there is no way to prove me wrong, because we don’T have any idea what then would have happened.
I think the risk of making a mistake is lower then the risk of doing nothing and waiting to be attacked.
I guess we can cut it down to say that we disagree here.
Your argument might make sense if it was the US forcing the French to save Iraqi lives. What gives France the right to prevent Americans from risking their lives to save Iraqis from Saddam? I am not saying the US has the right to trade 10 French for 100 Iraqis.
Well, the US are kind of “forcing” their allies. They threatened some countries to cut the US help. Even if that is not physical force, it still is force. For the French etc: Its the same right that any other of the veto-powers has and that each of them has used already.
What gives people the right to do this? Often it’s the ability to do something and the willingness to do it.
Here i couldn’t disagree more: If i have a gun, and hate my neighbor and am willing to kill him, does that give me the righ to murder him?
The ability and willingness has absolutely nothing to do with the right to do something.A lesser evil is always better then a greater evil.
But it still is an evil, which i do not have to applaud to at all.
What gave the allies the right to fight the Nazis?
The Nazis, by attacking Poland.
-
F_alk, you state: “Wether the attack in1938 would have been better is unprovable. I could just state that it would have been worse, and there is no way to prove me wrong, because we don’T have any idea what then would have happened.”
You know, I just have to shake my head and ask myself why I bother. I’m not going to bother reading you posts anymore, I’m sure I will miss some good stuff but when I read that kind of ‘stuff’ it just removes my desire to read the rest of what you write.
BB
-
F_alk, you state: “Wether the attack in1938 would have been better is unprovable. I could just state that it would have been worse, and there is no way to prove me wrong, because we don’T have any idea what then would have happened.”
You know, I just have to shake my head and ask myself why I bother. I’m not going to bother reading you posts anymore, I’m sure I will miss some good stuff but when I read that kind of ‘stuff’ it just removes my desire to read the rest of what you write.
BB
F_alk is not just trying to be obtuse here, BigBlocky, he’s making a legitimate point. What I think he’s saying is it is useless to argue about possibilities like this because no one can really know–it doesn’t prove anything. You or I may believe it would’ve been better to slap down Hitler in '38 using hindsight, but what if that had meant the Soviets would’ve dominated all of Europe? What if it had led to WWII–except USSR vs. UK & USA instead of the way it actually went down. A lot of Europeans would have escaped the death camps, certainly, but all of Europe & most of Asia might yet be living under Soviet domination–the whole world possibly! And an ultra-right Japan would still be tooling around Asia.
There’s just no way to know, so F_alk is just pointing out this is not a useful line of argument to pursue. Keep reading his posts.
Ozone27
-
What ifs always result in maybes and I don’t knows. 20-20 hindsight is a benefit we have that the leaders of the past did have.
Ok, should we of attacked Germany in 1938? Sure, we might of won the war. On the other hand, we might of lost it. No one really knew what Germany’s military was like back in the day, and that probably includes most German commanders. I think it would be hard to imagine, given the information known at the time, how a war with Germany would turn out.
Comparing Hitler to Saddam is doomed to fail. Saddam is small scale, a mouse compared to Hitler. Hitler’s army and air force was the strongest and most technologically advanced in the world. Saddam has old Migs and t-55s (not sure on the T-55s). Hitler was attacking a WWI style army, and had the mobility and firepower to keep moving. Saddam doesn’t even have power over his own generals.
Regardless, I believe it is unfair to critique the leaders of the past based on the information we know. Doing the same thing, I would condemn the leaders of England, France, and Italy for the Treaty of Versailles, which allowed Hitler to rise to power.
-
Saddam has old Migs and t-55s (not sure on the T-55s). Saddam doesn’t even have power over his own generals.
Not all of those MiGs are old. A few are quite advanced. Also, Saddam has many T-72s as well as the older (though upgraded) T-55s. While a “medium tank” at best by Western standards, the T-72 is capable of destroying an M1A2. “Even” a T-55 is a big threat to PCs & armored cars–which make up the vast majority of Coalitian armored vehicles. But point taken–with the exception of some of the planes, and (if rumor is true) a few infantry anti-tank weaps, all of Saddam’s technology is 70’s-era at best, they are few indeed in number to the Coalition’s arsenal, and Hussein has no way to build or purchase any more before the war ends. Plus he’s not in Europe.
Saddam seems so far to have pretty good control of his key generals. When the war starts to go badly, that might change…
Ozone27
-
The line of argument is akin to saying perhaps if you slaughter a million people something good might happen. If you save a million something bad might happen. "Oh but if you stopped hitler early how do you know it would have been better. "? What, you think MORE people would have died had Hitler been dealt with earlier? If you can argue things would be better with MORE hitler or worse with LESS hitler then you might as well argue that perhaps if you randomly kill a million people perhaps you might kill the next hitler. I can’t waste my time having to deal with crap like that.
As for reading his posts…. why do something that is not enjoyable anymore? I’m sure life will go on just fine without my input on some threads.
BB
-
Regardless of T-55 and T-72, the allies have depleated uranium ammo, I think only those 2 countries use it.
There is an old adage, forget history and you are doomed to repeat the same errors. I think it is good to draw lessons from history, obviously not blindly.
Sure, Saddam isn’t like what Hitler was in 1942, perhaps more like about 1935 or 1936. Do you want to wait until 1939 and let him get the first punch? This might not be related but I love the saying “The idea isn’t to die for your country, the idea is to make the enemy die for your country”.
The point I was making is that there might be a situation where pre-emptive action is the right choice. I don’t accept some ‘higher law’ that just says pre-emptive action is wrong. Of course there ought to be concerns that a China might attack Taiwan and claim right of pre-emption. Perhaps this case of Iraq is not strong enough for pre-emption, I can agree that there exists valid arguments on both sides. But a blanket statement like a commandment from god “Thoult shalt not lash out in pre-emptive defense” is not defendable. Pointing out problems and suggestions is better than arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I’d rather not have to argue that white really is white but it’s really a blend of a variety of wavelenghts of electromagnetic blah blah blah…. that just ain’t fun for me.
BB
-
What, you think MORE people would have died had Hitler been dealt with earlier?
I think the Cold War would of been a hell of a lot worse.
Sure, Saddam isn’t like what Hitler was in 1942, perhaps more like about 1935 or 1936. Do you want to wait until 1939 and let him get the first punch? This might not be related but I love the saying “The idea isn’t to die for your country, the idea is to make the enemy die for your country”.
Based on 1935 Information, is Hitler a threat? Is he building a weapon which could defeat either the mighty French or Russian armies? Is suicidal enough to think that he can beat the two strongest armies in the world at once?
Thats what people were saying in 1935. No one knew Hitler was and would get so advanced. But Saddam akin to Hitler in 1935? Maybe if you only consider the Mid-East, but Saddam’s armies probably aren’t even strong enough to defeat Iran.
Suggested Topics
