I was just talking about the pending war with WBK, woo we have intelligent convo's!!! Ofcourse that was after our discussion about Rap.
An interesting point was bought up when wbk mentioned all the anti-war people.
It's mostly democrats ofcourse cause they can't fully agree with the republicans, politics baby.
Hitler was also viewed as some tyranical dictator who wasn't really a threat cause everyone raped germany after WW1, especially with the versailles treaty. So everyone figured if anything we'll just pimp slap them again. Americans still believed in isolationism after WW1, Chruchill was basically alone on speaking out against Hitler. No one paid any mind while slowly Hitler wiped his ass with the versailles treaty and re-militarized germany, the rhine-land, annexing austria.
No one paid any mind until it was too late and we couldn't just stop him anymore, he had built the ultimate war machine and pulled out the perfect ally in stalin to avoid a two front war.
It's not an unfair comparison cause while we can judge Hitler by history, remember at the time he wasn't viewed as he is now. People didn't know the end result of the war or the concentration camps, or the death camps. No one knew this yet, hitler was just some loud mouth talking garbage about the world, just like saddam.
But Hitler didn't have weapons of mass destruction, imagine if Hitler beat us to developing the atomic bomb, which he was close to. If not for the defecting of german scientists we never would have devloped the bomb when we did.
Just because we whooped saddam once, doesn't mean we can just stand by idle while he may be building enough aresenal to wipe out all of civilization.
Those against the war are politicians worried about their own campaign, do they even think of this?
If Hitler was stopped in munich or he was stopped in 36, 37, 38. The lives of 50 million people could have been spared, 50 million!!!
Am I stretching on this, think about it when people say war is not where we should go. Maybe he doesn't have all these weapons, maybe he wont use them but can we take the chance? Can we take the chance of maybe saddam siding with Korea or vice versa? What if someone else joins in?
Its not like no one gave him a chance, its not like we're dealing with a reasonable person here.
Quote:If Hitler was stopped in munich or he was stopped in 36, 37, 38. The lives of 50 million people could have been spared, 50 million!!!
yeah... well maybe.... but where would they all live? ...they ain't stying with me, that's for Damn sure...
I'm against the war, but you have made the most compelling argument for the war to me yet. I don't know if Saddam is Hitler or not but I do know Hitler didn't undergo the same type of weapons inspections that Saddam is.
If Bush knows Saddam has weapons, why can't he reveal how he knows this?
we have to take the chance that he'll never use the weapons, because by your logic, we should then take out india, pakistan, england, germany, france, japan, china and the rest of the major powers with nuclear weapons. hitler should have been stopped after his failed coup at the beer hall pustch, but instead he was jailed for a year or something and wrote "my struggle"(i'll butcher the german name). but even when you ignore that, there were plenty of times when he should have been stopped but nobody tried, and with saddam, that has only happened once, and we took back what he did. hitler annexes austria, europe doesnt care. demands the sudetenland, gets it. he makes an alliance with slovakia, they become a satillite. all this time, easter europe was being eaten and england let it happen. but all saddam has done was stockpile weapons and invade kuwait. he invaded, we pushed him back. thats it, unlike hitler, we stopped him. he's trying more, but he hasnt done anything since, so why attack him? it is unjustified.
Well there is some proof that he has 'some' weapons that he shouldn't.
In a court of law yes the burden of proof lies on the plantiff.
But this is not some simple court case, this is a guy who has been hidind and defying all weapons inspections for a decade. The chance is there, why can't he just open up and say I got nothing? I'm just tired of people acting like we are some bullies trying to steal Saddams lunch money.
I just don't wanna see it get pushed off and he has more time and more time till it is too late.
Quote:because by your logic, we should then take out india, pakistan, england, germany, france, japan, china and the rest of the major powers with nuclear weapons.
sounds good to me :thumbs-up:
But why Saddam and not North Korea? Isn't Iraq just North Korea in the larvae stage?
Thats a good question keyser, I don't have the answers otherwise I'd be working in washington. Just food for thought.
But what else can you do when someone threatens you, you try to talk them down but how much talking can you do if you're agressor is ignoring you, how long till it comes to blows. If someone is holding a gun around you and you know they don't like you are you just gonna have hope that they don't shoot you?
If anything, we are being more measured than we would like to be. It was revealed that the government felt it was in our best national interest to appear irrational and unpredictable in response to threats abroad, since they use the same tactics against us.
The whole point is people say "we shouldn't get involved" blah blah, to a point its true we do get overly involved sometimes and like playing the God role.
But look where ignorance got us in WW2.
I really don't think the possibility exists, in world as it is at present, for there to be a "next Hitler". Undoubtedly, Hussein would love to have the power Hitler had, since both are megalomaniacal personalities. But when Hitler amassed his power, there was no United Nations, which as I'm sure you know was established after WWII, in large part, to prevent the rise to power of another dictator on a similar level.
In the Charter of the United Nations, it is declared unambiguously that the UN Security Council alone shall determine the existence of any threat to peace. The only exception is the right of self-defense against an "armed attack." Any law abiding state must abide by these limitations. An attack on Iraq without the approval of the Security Council would in effect make us a rogue state, as lawless as we regard our enemies.
Had the United Nations existed at the time of Hitler's rise, I have no doubt that Germany and Hitler would have been determined a threat by the Security Council as early as March of 1936 when Hitler's army occupied the Rhineland, and definitely by November 1937 when he revealed his war plans during the Hossbach Conference. This was some 4 months before the union with Austria, by which time, if the world climate were as it is now, they'd already have been up to their necks in bombs.
At this point, I don't see Saddam Hussein being at the level Hitler was even in 1936. His first (and only, thus far) attempted seige was a failure, met with Allied armies with UN backing. He knows all eyes are on him, and he knows motherfuckers are gonna be gunning for him the second he does anything that could be determined a threat to peace. That hasn't happened yet. And as fbd pointed out, we can't just take out anyone who might be a threat. In the example, "If someone is holding a gun around you and you know they don't like you are you just gonna have hope that they don't shoot you?", if you kill them before they act, then you're a murderer in the eyes of the law. It's not self defense unless there's an attack. It sucks...but it's the way it is.
Well lets hope on febuary 5th that Colin Powell has an adlai stevenson moment at the UN.
Quote:The lives of 50 million people could have been spared, 50 million!!!
Stop inflating the numbers, jew.
50 million in total not just the jews you ignorant bastard.
20 million Russians alone died during the war.
I say we get a few B-52s and drop those 10,000 pound bombs on his presidential palaces. It's probably where he's hiding all those wmd's and the inspectors aren't allowed to see the palaces. Fuck the UN they are anti USA anyway.
Those are scary what ifs Gonzo,
I think it would be pure folly for America to justify any Xenophobic policy,
and actions of war, based on what ifs.
I think we should be careful,
vigilant,
and work to enforce the UN resolutions,
but I don't think at this point,
or at any point soon,
that Sadaam will be close to marshaling the arms Hitler had at his disposal.
I read in today's papers, that UN inspectors were not allowed to visit a university in Northern Iraq because the people were not given advnce notice of the inspectors coming. Whatever, Powell shows on Wednesday will determine when we go to war. We supposedly have satellite photos of trucks and bulldozers getting rid of sites before inspectors show up and radio interceptions of Iraq officials telling people where the inspectors are headed and scientists being coached on what to say and what to say when being interviewed.
These inspections are a joke. The UN is a joke. In March, Iraq is suppossed to head up the UN disarmament committee. I agree 100% with Gonzo comparing him to Hitler. Iraq's people are gassed, put in dungeons, raped, athletes are killed for not winning. Look at those fucks cheering when the space shuttle exploded saying it was Allah condeming Americans. They hate us and will do whatever they can to make us pay either monetarily or with our lives and our freedoms.
Do my eyes decieve me or did teenweek just add his own personal view without pasting a link or story?
Dude, i'm touched.
please notice that at no time did i try to make this thread about me.