02-02-2003, 01:35 AM
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.
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.