U.S. and Iraq are officially winning:

[COOL_BREEZE2]

You tell me in what way Hussein's regime was a threat to stability in the Middle East. I can tell you now that before the war Iran was not in control of Southern Iraq. Iraq was the balance to Iranian ambitions. That is gone now and Iran couldn't be happier.

Also before 9/11 Iran was on the brink of armed conflict with Afghanistan, and had large numbers of forces near the border.

Now Iran has major influence in both countries.

Hitler wasn't a threat at one time either was he?

 

[Josef]

Hitler wasn't a threat at one time either was he?

Are you really going to bring Hitler into this debate?

 

[Josef]

You actually have me interested now. In what way were Hussein and Hitler similar?

Well they were both bad men obviously, both had inexplicable comedy moustaches...

I'm struggling for more...

Both their last names begin with 'H'?

 

[Alien Allen]

I'm tired of having this debate, it just seems some people love war. Perhaps because it makes for good TV?

Anyway, this:



Is perhaps the most mental thing I have ever heard. The Middle East has been unstable since the days of the carve up, but it was a hell of a lot more stable before Iraq was destroyed than it is now.

Gee thanks for the compliment.

Are you a peacenic?

Were you a hippie or your parents depending upon age?

You can parse my posts all ya like. It will go over your head I am sure.

 

[Minor Axis]

Back to the point to discuss: the effectiveness of the Iraqi people with coalition support. I think they are doing quite well, and should be congratulated on their efforts, but also reminded there is a long road ahead. Iraq is an extremely fragile location for *anyone* to be in right now, and instead of arguing left/right stuff, how about support for those who are over there, regardless of whether or not you think we should be over there in the first place?

I think every one here wants this mess wrapped up. I've got a son in the Armed Forces and as a veteran, I do support the superb job the military is doing in a rotten situation (my opinion) but it's very hard to compartmentalize and support the troops without getting angry about how they got dumped into this mess.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Are you really going to bring Hitler into this debate?

Yes, for comparison purposes.

You actually have me interested now. In what way were Hussein and Hitler similar?

Well they were both bad men obviously, both had inexplicable comedy moustaches...

I'm struggling for more...

Both their last names begin with 'H'?

ahhhhh yes, same last name initial too huh? Good spotting.

Well besides that, the comparison was that basically when he was systematically going about his tyrant business to build his army and plans for wiping out the jews he was allowed to do that for a good while because nobody wanted to do anything about it...or afraid...or didn't want to get involved until it was almost too late. By which time a magnitude of jews, too many I can't recall now, had already been evaporated. Notwithstanding his ambitions to conquer more countries.

On a sidenote, that madman, had he have access to WMDs he may have very well be inclined to use it too. Don't doubt that.

 

[IntruderLS1]

More than just the Jews lost their lives in the Holocaust. Jews were 6 in 10, but that leaves 4 million others. :nono:

Bad man that one was.

 

[Tim]

Saddam and Hitler were two different types of madmen. Hitler truly believed in world domination while Saddam had no such aspirations. Saddam knew that if he were to step to far over the line it would mean the end of his world in the form of a mushroom cloud. Hitler had no such threat to keep him in line.

Saddam knew how far he could go, there was no way the world would allow him to take over the middle east, he was confined to his own little patch of sand.

No matter how far he pushed the rest of the world, Saddam was no real threat to us or any other major country

There are no comparing the two....

 

[groundpounder]

Saddam was a dangerous dangerous man.

 

[ssl]

I think every one here wants this mess wrapped up. I've got a son in the Armed Forces and as a veteran, I do support the superb job the military is doing in a rotten situation (my opinion) but it's very hard to compartmentalize and support the troops without getting angry about how they got dumped into this mess.

Good that you are supporting your boy; nothing finer in my opinion than to support family in any circumstance. :thumbup

If you do not agree, the I suggest writing to those who agree with your situation, and get a large enough list that encompasses a large region of people, and petition the next president to get out. I would not bother writing your Congressional representative; although they may attempt to set dates for troop withdrawal, but that is not their function:

Congress should have nothing to do with a war, except declaration and appropriation of funds. The commander in chief is the top military official, and therefore controls the war effort. As such, the chief needs to be known specifically, by a large group of peoples across the nation, that his/her war-time actions are not vindictive of the populace, and should reconsider his/her choices in the war.

I suggest to keep it as a business-type complaint-format. I am not sure if a specific action suggested by you and your fellow petitioners would be the best, because you may or may not have all the information he/she has as the top military official.

I would encourage all of you who do not support the war to write to the next president, indicating your lack of support for the war; if the letter count is significant enough, the president may decide the effort is not worthwhile enough to continue, and bring the troops home.

Of course, as you say, we made the mess, we should clean it up; however, war cleanups are even messier.

 

[Josef]

Well besides that, the comparison was that basically when he was systematically going about his tyrant business to build his army and plans for wiping out the jews he was allowed to do that for a good while because nobody wanted to do anything about it...or afraid...or didn't want to get involved until it was almost too late. By which time a magnitude of jews, too many I can't recall now, had already been evaporated. Notwithstanding his ambitions to conquer more countries.

On a sidenote, that madman, had he have access to WMDs he may have very well be inclined to use it too. Don't doubt that.

Hussein wasn't in the process of building his military. In fact he had been castrated by Gulf War 1, sanctions and the no-fly zones. The idea he was about to launch an attack on Israel, one of the strongest militaries in the in the world, is absurd.

 

[dt3]

For every soldier, every fighter, every 'martyr' who was sent to his own sepulchre, has died for naught. Most the same age as me, or even younger.

No, if we pull out and leave Iraq anything less than a stable democracy, then they will have died for nothing.

 

[Zorak]

No, if we pull out and leave Iraq anything less than a stable democracy, then they will have died for nothing.

That's incredible, I can't believe people think like that.

It's like if you bought a big cake, but you get it home and you don't really like it, but because you've spent xx amount of money on it, you struggle through to finish it.
When in reality it doesn't matter, you've already lost that money - finish the cake or not you'll get nothing back.

Every soldier has already died in vain, whether Iraq ever becomes a stable democratic country won't bring them back, and every day people try to justify their deaths - more die for nothing. And the circles continues.
Pull out now, and those dead are still dead, but the living can remain so.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

More than just the Jews lost their lives in the Holocaust. Jews were 6 in 10, but that leaves 4 million others. :nono:

Bad man that one was.

Right.

Saddam was a dangerous dangerous man.

Saddam and Hitler were two different types of madmen. Hitler truly believed in world domination while Saddam had no such aspirations. Saddam knew that if he were to step to far over the line it would mean the end of his world in the form of a mushroom cloud. Hitler had no such threat to keep him in line.

Saddam knew how far he could go, there was no way the world would allow him to take over the middle east, he was confined to his own little patch of sand.

No matter how far he pushed the rest of the world, Saddam was no real threat to us or any other major country

There are no comparing the two....

There is everything comparing the two. Two madmen peas in a pod. Oh, I love to hear ya'll with "no, Saddam wouldn't do this, Saddam wouldn't do that". That's freaking hilarious. Ya'll are inside the madman's head knowing what he's thinking. he he. Hitler wouldn't have done this, Hitler wouldn't have done that. he he. Tell that to the millions of Jews and others he and his cohorts evaporated and died on the way to his ambitions.

So yeah, Saddam was not and would never have done anything because you knew what he was thinking. he he.

Hooray for Saddam the humanitarian.

 

[Josef]

Right.





There is everything comparing the two. Two madmen peas in a pod. Oh, I love to hear ya'll with "no, Saddam wouldn't do this, Saddam wouldn't do that". That's freaking hilarious. Ya'll are inside the madman's head knowing what he's thinking. he he. Hitler wouldn't have done this, Hitler wouldn't have done that. he he. Tell that to the millions of Jews and others he and his cohorts evaporated and died on the way to his ambitions.

So yeah, Saddam was not and would never have done anything because you knew what he was thinking. he he.

Hooray for Saddam the humanitarian.

Correction:

"no, Saddam couldn't do this, Saddam couldn't do that"

Once you grasp this important difference you will realise your Hitler analogy is ridiculous.

 

[Minor Axis]

When comparing Saddam and Hitler, I'd say that they both could rationalize any decision they made to kill people as why it was the right thing to do.

However, I disagree with the notion that the U.S. needed to invade Iraq to protect the world from Saddam ( as if there is threat comparison like Hitler was in WWII). That is heavy duty rationalization. North Korea was much more of a danger to the world and hey we are talking to them. Diplomacy can work. Considering the history of the U.S. and how we have historically dealt with "bad countries" there is no way that our unprovoked attack on Iraq is justifiable. The reasons for the attack were fabricated to facilitate aggression and fulfill a secret agenda of the Administration. While you can speculate what the agenda really is, I feel very comfortable that even today the Administration will never acknowledge what it truly hopes to accomplish in Iraq.

 

[Tim]

Right.





There is everything comparing the two. Two madmen peas in a pod. Oh, I love to hear ya'll with "no, Saddam wouldn't do this, Saddam wouldn't do that". That's freaking hilarious. Ya'll are inside the madman's head knowing what he's thinking. he he. Hitler wouldn't have done this, Hitler wouldn't have done that. he he. Tell that to the millions of Jews and others he and his cohorts evaporated and died on the way to his ambitions.

So yeah, Saddam was not and would never have done anything because you knew what he was thinking. he he.

Hooray for Saddam the humanitarian.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you not see that the world is a completely different place today than it was when Hitler began his march? Hitler was able to amass one of the worlds greatest armies and was at the lead in many military weapon systems. There was nothing to keep him in check. We didn't have satellites watching his every move. And we sure as hell didn't have any weapons at our disposal that could stop him in his tracks.
Yet today, we knew all of Saddam's movements by satellite, we have the most technologically advanced military in the world, we have aircraft carriers off his coast (which alone could wipe him off the face of the earth) we have dozens of nuclear subs (each one is capable of removing Iraq from the globe) and we have the world to back us up if Saddam would have made a move on the world. Saddam was a monster who killed thousands, but he wasn't stupid enough to think he could take over the world, or even the middle east.
Hitler was a true threat to the world for many reasons, he was very close to pulling it off. Saddam was a threat to no country. He couldn't even take care of Iran after 10 years of fighting...

 

[Josef]

Exactly. Hussein had been emasculated. Hence the reason the US managed to complete the invasion in about 20 minutes.

 

[All Else Failed]

Well seeing as how the violence fluctuates this means nothing really. Oh and how we don't even control most of the country.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you not see that the world is a completely different place today than it was when Hitler began his march? Hitler was able to amass one of the worlds greatest armies and was at the lead in many military weapon systems. There was nothing to keep him in check. We didn't have satellites watching his every move. And we sure as hell didn't have any weapons at our disposal that could stop him in his tracks.
Yet today, we knew all of Saddam's movements by satellite, we have the most technologically advanced military in the world, we have aircraft carriers off his coast (which alone could wipe him off the face of the earth) we have dozens of nuclear subs (each one is capable of removing Iraq from the globe) and we have the world to back us up if Saddam would have made a move on the world. Saddam was a monster who killed thousands, but he wasn't stupid enough to think he could take over the world, or even the middle east.
Hitler was a true threat to the world for many reasons, he was very close to pulling it off. Saddam was a threat to no country. He couldn't even take care of Iran after 10 years of fighting...

Yeah. and yet it took so long to find Saddam. And yet we can't even find Bin Laden. All that technology. Isn't it Ironic? Whatcha think?