Cowards - We helped them, where's ours...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by train, Aug 19, 2002.

  1. Mongoose Man Gnome of Doom

    I agree with everything Gizmo said. Saddam is someone that many of us would love to see kicked out of power but really, what would that do in the long run? It's inevitable that a new "Saddam" will replace the old one and isn't it better to stay with the enemy we know the best? All that attacking Iraq would do is cause many deaths on both sides which is something that we all (I'd hope) want to avoid. But I'll not be surprised if we do attack and kill because that's what America does...Lives are nothing when pitted against the almighty dollar.... Some priorities need to be straightened out...
  2. train The Wildcard!!!...

    It took 2 times to permanently remove germany's threaten the world ideal, if done right we could remove Iraq's the second time also... It's not about who's next in line, it's about them realizing that they know better than to try and do anything.
  3. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Heavens I hope you're not suggesting that the two have anything in common, other than the nutcase factor. The reasons for removing Hussein from power and the reasons for quashing Hitler could not be more different.

    Hussein: Talks a lot of smack, has a lot of oil.

    Hitler: Killed a lot of people, had a lot of Europe.

    Simplistic, I know, but seriously, if there was even a speck of a chance that Hussein was one-tenth the threat that Hitler was, I'd go drop the bombs myself.
  4. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Well, Bush and Tony Blair are apparently trying to give reasons and marshall support for an Iraq invasion. I haven't kept up with the news since Saturday, so I don't know what they're saying.

    If Bush is sayin that oil is a reason, that must be a smokescreen... though the Middle East region as a whole supplies the majority of oil to the US (I think), I believe Brazil or some other South American country and Canada are the top two individual suppliers.

    I think the justification may have more to do with also supplying and financing terrorist groups, but again, I don't know what they're saying. In addition, no evidence doesn't mean there isn't evidence (and it makes it harder when Iraq refuses to allow inspections, although I think they have done a couple just recently).

    The problem with the comparison of Hitler and Hussein is that until about mid-way through WWII, no one really knew the extent of Hitler's depravity. Sure, he was anti-Semetic, but no one thought he was capable of extermination at the beginning. All everyone saw at the time was land-grabbing (which Hussein did with Kuwait). Unless you want to make the comparison of Kurds to Jews....
  5. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Germany has since said they'll do nothing at all if an Attack is lead by the U.S.. France and Russia will wait to see what the U.N. says... Germany's just getting ready for Ocktoberfest...
    (behind the scenes)
    Let's help those U.N. boys pay a little of their debt off... How much should we write the check for boys???... Nice doing business with you...
    (back at the support table)
    Well, you heard the U.N. Pierre and Putin, Saddle-up!!!

    Get 'em W!!!
  6. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Spiderman - the justification being spouted from Bush (and echoed by Blair) is that Saddam Hussein is a direct threat the United State Of America.

    Funny huh? Laughable almost.

    And, Train. Dear god, man. Please read a history book before you start making dumb comments about the Germany of World Wars I and II. Also any comparisons between Hitler and Hussein are strained at best, and entirely fictional at worst.
  7. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    This just in...

    France has offered to surrender to Iraq.
  8. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Gizmo: There's gotta be more than that if they're making a presentation to other world leaders...

    Say, have you stopped playing Magic or something? Haven't seen you around lately...
  9. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Basically, yeah. The last tournament I went to was Nationals, in May, and I`ve barely touched a card since. Right now all my creative energy is going to into my website (currently pulling 1,250,000 views per month!) and Ive no interest in Magic.

    If theres a tournament my friends go to, and theyve got an interesting deck to give me... I guess I`d go, otherwise I`m done.

    And on the politics issue:
    Not really, their presentation to world leaders is basically about calling in favours, and promising things in return for support.
    They are using a new report to show that Iraq is a danger - a report that only two months ago had been sidelined and a government source announced it would not be published because it 'contains too much speculation and not enough facts' is now being used as the prime source of policy.

    The report has no evidence about what has happened in Iraq since the last UN team left in 1998, and simply speculates about Iraqs current state of arms.

    Wether the other nations comply will have nothing to do with how much they think Iraq is a threat, and a lot to do with how much they want to please America... Russia for instance is desperate for US support, and US war on Iraq would legitimise what they are doing in Chechnya as the US would basically be doing the same thing. However the Russians are owed billions by Iraq, and would want guarantees that they`d get their money from other sources if they agreed to support the attack.
  10. train The Wildcard!!!...

    The only differences between WWI and II dealt with their being 2 different objectives. In WWI Germany was not on a Genocide mission like in WWII. What they did do was decide that they were big enough to impose themselves territorily, upon other nations. Granted, WWI probably would not have occurred if the Archduke had not been assassinated, but choosing to go from revenge/retribution to World Domination was maniacal. They merely saw opportunity to claim what was "theirs" and acted upon it. They weren't ready for war, they acted on a whim and got the tar beat out of them for it.

    As for WWII - genocide and love of little boys was all that mattered. Freakin' Hitler !@$%#@^#$^$# @^@#$&#%^*!!!

    The leaders of Germany may have had different objectives, but neither was justified. When Saddam decided to go after Kuwait, because he was bored, he acted like Germany in WWI, going too far. By continuing to support terrorist activities - specifically towards the U.S., he borders on the German ideals of WWII. Supporting ideals that would remove Nationality, of just one nation, for religious reasons or any other reasons, is genocide upon the ideals of that nation. They don't care about the races that exist in our country, just the nationality.

    If we were Mexico, and thank goodness were not, Saddam wouldn't care for us except that we border the U.S..

    Had the Allies from WWI stood up and said No to Germany and enforced the treaty, there wouldn't have been a WWI. Trust me, The U.S. would have stepped in and said, look, let's lighten up a bit, but keep the leash on them. Instead, The European allies let the wolf into the hen house and then kept stocking it with more hens.

    So Saddam seems to have fulfilled both requirements to be related to both of the 2 different WW Germanys. Are there bigger dogs in the world like in WWI and II, yes. Does he care, no, just like Germany didn't. Is he a threat - not to annihilate the nation, like Germany couldn't the world, but to our peace of mind and possibly millions of innocent people, yes. It took months, years for the Genocide of the Jews to reach millions. It could take 1 or 2 warheads today. That is the danger that should be realized.

    As for History - sad to say part of my family was from Boston, and strutted their knowledge of History and how important it was... I heard it all, all the time, every time we drove past it, in every class, at all the museums, and the lecture halls of colleges... That's actually something I do well in in school.
  11. train The Wildcard!!!...

    That's the longer explanatory version of the shorter statements I've already made...

    Whew!!! - my fingers are tired...
  12. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    In WWI Germany was a great power playing the same great power game that had been played in Europe for the past two centuries. Germany was a newly industrialised power with an opportunity to expand at the expense of weaker neighbour states who had not industrialised.
    The comment 'they got the tar beaten out of them for it' is also misplaced. The German army did not lose WWI, rather the economic embargo emposed by the royal navy forced the German government to concede to prevent mass starvation and a communist revolution.

    In WWII the drive to expand was explicitally racially motivated - Hitler was not playing great power games he was following his belief that Germany was destined to rule Europe because Germans were a superior race. However it was NOT a genocide mission - until 1941 the German policy was explicitly NON-GENOCIDAL, and it was only during the summer-autumn of 1941, as the war in Russia waxed and waned, that the German state turned to genocide to finally solve the problem of it`s Jewish population.

    As I said... you really should read a history book. There`s no evidence that the genocide of the Jew`s originated with Hitler, and there IS evidence to the contrary - its currently a hot historical issue and not one that looks likely to ever be proven either way. However it is absolutely provably untrue that Hitler had any interest in men, let alone little boys. In truth his sexuality was largely repressed from the point he became obessed with politics, but when it did manifest in his youth it did so as a shy obsession with pretty, aristocratic, young ladies who were beyond his reach

    Largely true, I would modify the statement to say that while he acted like the Germany of 1914, he also acted more like the Germany of 1936-1940, who annexed Europe piece by piece, more than the Germany of 1914, who tried to invade and defeat a major regional rival.

    Well, if there was any evidence Iraq supports international terrorism this might be true...
    And if there was any history pre-1991 of Iraw being hostile to USA instead of in fact being an ally, this might be true...
    And if the US hadnt imposed an unethical embargo in Iraq, making the USA the prime enemy of Iraw for non-ideological reasons, then this might be true.

    As it stands however, its not true. There is no evidence Iraq supports terrorism, there is no history of Saddam being anti-US before 1991, and there IS a legitimate reason for Saddam Hussein to want to end American infringement on his country.


    WWI - there was no treaty. War between great powers was a legitimate form of inter-state policy.
    The USA was deliberately ignoring the European situation because it didnt want to get involved.

    Lets fast forwards to WWII... where there WAS a treaty. In this case lets see how America had helped keep the peace. Erm, wait... no, it in fact made things much MUCH worse. Its almost certain that America CAUSED WWII. Lets check the facts:

    America refused to join the League Of Nations because it didnt want to be involved in European fights. The League therefore had minimal ability to enforce it`s policies, and it was an ineffective check on militaristic nations like Japan, Italy, and Germany.

    When Germany was on it`s economic knees in 1924, it was American loans that helped it rebuild its economy. You get a star.
    American refusal to join world markets was a contributor to the Wall St Crash, and plunged the global economy into deep depression in 1929/30. Following this collapse American banks demanded money back from Germany, plunging it deeper and deeper into cris, and in this crisis Hitler rose to power in Germany promising a new future.

    When asked by Britain to become involved in containing Germany in the mid-late 1930s the American response was that it was none of their business.

    I think I just proved otherwise. And in both 1914 and 1939 Germany had good claim to being the greatest military power in the world, especially when considered in concert with it`s allies. Iraq is not Germany, Saddam is not Hitler, and there is no evidence that he is a threat to millions of people.

    Its probably a shame they never told you anything correct then. Ive learnt from many such debates with Americans over the past year that the history taught over there is ... how to put this nicely... a little imbalanced? From the pro-american coloring put on things, to sheer lies told to make America look good (such as that Russia began the war against Germany in 1940 armed with American tanks, and was only able to survive because of food and equipment sent to them from America - a sheer fabrication that one guy had been taught in school).

    Did I ever mention that I`m a graduate in History and International Politics, with my specific studies including Germany between the wars, WWII, the Holocaust, and the life of Hitler?
  13. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I said the allies from WWI...
  14. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I'll admit history taught in the U.S is a little imbalanced, but find me a country that isn't teaching history that way...

    As for any of the WW's being created through economical issues - can't think of any war that was... Wars don't help when a country is struggling economically... They may provide war industry, but anyything else but pride is washed away when it's over... As for Germany becoming newly industrialized - they had been so for almost 2 decades... They were a thriving nation, that took an opportunity, and couldn't back up their bark.

    Though hitler may not be proven to be the start of the Jewish Genocide, and let me state this correctly, he created German policy at the time... He supported it more than any other person ever mentioned in History during these periods... thus his claim to fame...

    Hitler didn't become obsessed with politics - he bacame obsessed with power - mein kampf...

    As for the U.S. not getting involved in the 30's, this is sad to say - We were having trouble holding our own heads above the water.

    As for Iraq supporting terrorism - ummm - he's related to Bin Laden, and may of his cabinet - have been tagged to terrorism...

    As for pre '91 - Hussein didn't think the U.S. would get involved due to the oil industry, he had no reason to be anti-U.S. if we paid him for oil.

    As for the league of Nations, you're right - but it is also a much more watered-down version of the U.N. - and it never stood up to anything.

    As for your history background - congratulations... especially on the graduate part... That is an accomplishment.

    As for the studies on Hitler, nobody actually knows, but him, that's why they're studies...
  15. Mongoose Man Gnome of Doom

    Well I hate to break it to you but many of the people in the middle east support terrorism in one way or another, this doesn't mean that we should go in and kill them all... It's not really their fault that they were raised being told how evil the U.S. is, and it's not like we don't give them many, many reasons to hate us...

    Well of course it never stood up to anything, it had no power whatsoever, the U.S. comes up with the Leauge of Nations idea and doesn't even join it and it ends up being a powerless waste of effort...

    All though, i'm not an expert in anything so i may be full of sh*t but that's just my take on things =)
  16. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Then you were badly taught again, as economic might and military might are inextricably intertwined, and a common political theory is that wars are most commonly created by nations who are in the midst of a rapid growth or decline in their economy. A growing nation wants to test its new strength and see if it can grow at the expense of its neighbours. A declining nation strikes out to use what strength it still has in order to preserve its future.

    There is a VERY strong link between the German economy and the rush to war in 1936-1939. If Germany hadnt gone to war in 1939-1941 at the absolute latest (in fact Hitler didnt want war in 1939, he thought Britain wouldnt fight over Poland), the German economy would have utterly imploded without access to the raw materials of countries to the east, like the Romanian oil fields.

    As I said, there is no evidence Hitler created policy in Germany during the second world war. He spent most of the war hundreds of miles from the seat of government - either at the Eagles Nest, or later at Wolfs Lair - and was in communication with the people drafting and implementing policy only infrequently. There is evidence that the mass murder of the jews was begun by the local SS officers as a MORE HUMANE way of treating those living in the polish ghettos, where conditions were rapidly declining as Germany conquered new Jews in Russia and herded them into the same small space - living hells of disease and starvation. And was only retrospectively was the plan to murder the jews oen-masse approved by Hitler, when he was informed by Himmler of what had been started.

    Yes, Hitler was at the head of the government. But the structure of the Reich, the inherent motto of 'working towards the fuhrer' created an atmosphere where policy became ever more radical, with Hitler only providing the broad direction in which policy should head (ie. there should be no jews in Germany), and not providing actual solutions (ie. encouraging voluntary emigration, compulsory transportation, mass murder) .

    Mein Kampf marks a turning point in Hitler`s political career. Prior to his stay in prison he did not see himself as the destined leader for the German race, he only saw his role as being a standard bearer. Mein Kampf marks the point where this changed and he rewrote his history and philosophy to one more in keeping with someone who would be leader.
    Prior to his failure in Munich, and his victory at the trial, Hitler had never seen himself achieving power - it simply wasnt his destined role.

    I hope you dont mean related, as in uncles or brothers or whatnot. And Saddam doesnt really have a cabinet, just generals, relations, and flunkies who he most trusts - and to my knowledge none have links to terrorism. Iraq simply doesnt have a history of terrorist activity - Saddam has always been more interested in advancing Iraqi interests than expending resources in meaningless attacks on his enemies that dont bring any reward.

    Which kind of proves my point that Saddam isnt anti-US by fanatical ideology, which you had claimed by comparing him to a genocidally driven Hitler. Saddam is not driven by ideology, but by pragmatism - great political pragmatism is the mark of Saddam`s reign, not ideological extremes.

    Because the worlds two largest powers remained out of it, USA by choice, the fledgling Soviet Union ideologically opposed to a democratic union of states. Had America joined, the League would have been more succesful.

    Actually a surprising amount about the man himself is known - less known is what he did in government following the onset of war, as the system of government in the reich makes it almost impossible to determine who ordered what. Hitler, the man, the personality - there is a vast amount of evidence about that. I suggest you read Ian Kershaw`s excellent two-part autobiography of Hitler.
  17. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Interesting, while catching up on my newspaper reading from last week, there was an article in the 9/4 Washington Post that described how the US "found" proof that Iraq has been increasing and improving the way it may deliver chemical weapons, through some sort of "drone". While nothing was said about the actual state of arms (that I remember), trying to make a delivery system without the actual arms doesn't really make a lot of sense.

    Just read a report on that Russia and China are almost sure to veto any UN action, should the US go through that body as many of the world's leaders would like it to.

    The next following is hard to debate with someone whose degree is in this field, so these are my impressions (and hey, who knows, even a student can be reading the wrong sources or be led astray ;) )

    It is my understanding that it was in 1941 that news of the concentration camps finally got out and reached the Allies (or at least the US). So presumably, this policy had been going on beforehand. Further, I find it hard to believe that given Hitler's tendency to micromanage (again, my impression) military matters, he knew nothing about what was happening non-militarily. He and Himmler went back; while it is conceivable that once the SS was set up and took it upon themselves to start the genocide, I would bet Hitler knew about it within the first week, max.

    This is pretty much assuming that the US could have done anything to stop Hitler, almost by its lonesome, since you implicitly count out France or England. The US was suffering also in the '30s and really didn't have the energy to look abroad. While joining the League in the 20s would have helped some, like most democratic nations with a voting process, the majority that won didn't want to. I'm pretty sure Wilson was pushing for joining. (I make that comment because other countries pretty much follow one person and their wishes, hence, you can associate the country with the person).

    I agree with Gizmo here; bin Laden is related to the Saudi royal family, but not Iraq's ruling family...
  18. train The Wildcard!!!...

    SpideyAs I know/knew it, Hussein is married to a daughter of the royal family, whose brother is Bin Laden - is this not correct... I believe some of Bin Laden's aids are also married to members of his family.

    If Germany had become such an economically industrialized nation, why couldn't it pay for materials instead of having to "acquire" them... Once again - their economy could have gotten anything they needed - their government didn't want to pay - thus they began taking steps towards war by "acquiring" raw materials... The economy is always present at all times - but it does not cause the war... That stems from ideals of power or retaliation...
    Though a lot of the SS officers may have abused their power locally - for mass murders at these camps to begin at about the same time at all camps does not seem like some local idea - it may have been tried at one place and the idea passed on to Hitler - but he would have said to do it everywhere... These SS officers would not have dared crossed Hitler, most of the ones that didn't spend their time around him knew they couuld die if they did something he didn't approve of.
    Like I said - he wanted power - had another leader followed ideals similar to Hitler's, Hitler still would have wanted the higher role, he would not have been a second-hand man. He wanted it all.

    As for the Reich:
    The Reich, was given plenty of notions for legislature through messaging or communications from Hitler - They followed his lead, had they not, and had they followed a broader general lead, as you said, - he would have dealt with them. Hitler wasn't a conservatist - why do you think the Reich became more radical???

    You mean Like Germany was advancing German interests...
    I don't think Pragmatism would cause someone to say they would support the destruction of another nation for ideology...

    And you cannot tell me that because the U.S. satyed out fo the League of Nations, that France, and England at the least, could not have stood up sooner. They waited too long to do anything, by the time they fought over Poland, The maniacal trip Gremany was traveling was already too far from home to turn around... they were going to finish their trip...

    I'll look into Kershaw's a.b..

    Mongoose Man
    Not all of them control a nation, or carry around chemical weapons...
  19. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    train: Yeah, a couple of bin Laden's aides are married to some of bin Laden's extended family, but that's just "keeping it in the family". I am not aware of Hussein being married to a Saudi royal, but should that be so, bin Laden was "disowned" by his family. That's not to say that members of the Saudi royal family might agree personally and privately with bin Laden, but unless more is known about how close bin Laden is with this supposed sister, merely saying that they might be brothers-in-laws is a bit of stretch :)
  20. train The Wildcard!!!...

    That's just the way I understood it...

    Understandings can be wrong though....

    Granted I've done some wrong things before... Once I cheated on the Elvish Ranger with Serra, I lost her forever... (begins crying desperately and sinks to the floor... pleads to the gods for the ranger to be brought back to him...)

Share This Page