Saddam was the Hitler of our time

SteveStromberg · 08-19-2004, 08:32 AM

We did the right thing by removing him. We need to get Castro Next
As forWMD gee look at what we found.

http://xpda.com/junkmail/junk155/buriedJets.htm

If they can bury those you do not think they buried other stuff?

Moneyguy1 · 08-19-2004, 08:59 AM

Steve...Not even close.

Tens of thousands is bad. Tens of millions will take a lot to top. BEtween "Uncle Joe" and Herr Hitler, entire cultures were eradicated, and the jury says that Joe was worse.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

A jet fighter buried in dirt is a WMD?

LOL.

joeclarke · 08-19-2004, 11:37 AM

what... me? I didn't say nothin'...

SteveStromberg · 08-19-2004, 12:50 PM

NO TW, but if you bury a jet surley you could bury some WMD's

Moneyguy1 · 08-19-2004, 05:44 PM

If oue satellites can find buried ancient city ruins, one would think they could be programmed to find WMDs as well...they would leave "lumps in the ground" too...

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveStromberg
NO TW, but if you bury a jet surley you could bury some WMD's

No argument. And if you destroyed 15,000 WMD devices, you might overlook one or two sitting around with expired sarin components.

If Saddam had actually been a threat to the US, he would have used WMDs. But he just didn't have any to use.

350HP930 · 08-19-2004, 05:59 PM

If he 'wins' another election or suspends them due to a 'national emergency' bush may be well on his way to being the hitler of the 21st century. He has been our 'leader' for only a little over 3 years now and he already has the blood of almost 20,000 innocent people on his hands.

How many innocent non combatants does a person need to slaughter after hijacking a nation before they officially qualify for hitler status?

Vipergrün · 08-19-2004, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 350HP930
If he 'wins' another election or suspends them due to a 'national emergency' bush may be well on his way to being the hitler of the 21st century. He has been our 'leader' for only a little over 3 years now and he already has the blood of almost 20,000 innocent people on his hands.

How many innocent non combatants does a person need to slaughter after hijacking a nation before they officially qualify for hitler status?

Unfortunately, *they* can justify that because those who have fallen have done so *protecting* our country. From what? I have not yet figured that out. God bless their souls and Heaven help us if W is re-elected. Yes, I am a Christian Republican and ashamed I voted for W.

MFAFF · 08-20-2004, 02:11 AM

IIRC the issue with WMDs was two fold.

1) That he had them
2) He was willing to use them on others and with little warning.

If you bury such items in the same fashion as those MiG 25 you need a fair amount of work to get them back into any sort of action.

This does not tally very well with the 45min claim that we over here were treated to in the run-up to the war.

So Saddman may well have WMD, as its very big place and there are penty of places in which to bury them, but if we haven't found them yet they are either very well hidden and know only to a handful of people who may now well be dead or captured, which limits how 'threatening' they really were, or they have bene thrown into a big hole and are in the same state as that MiG, again limiting their threat.

As to the Hitler/ Saddam parallel I tihkn there are a couple of zeros to the left of the decimal point to go before Saddma enters the ring.

Overall it will probably be a 'good' thing that Saddam has been removed, but the reasons given as to why now and with this method do not really stand up any longer.

tabs · 08-20-2004, 02:39 AM

Another Question....Does anybody on this Board think Sodaminsane should still be in power?

I will presume the unianimous response will be No, he should be outa power. So the question that remains is the means to have had him removed.

The Bush administration chose to use a battering ram through the front door and take the place by storm...very direct and very effective.

UN Sanctions and European talking just wasn't working....and they weren't about to change.

Rely on alternative political factions to remove Sadam....well most of them were allready dead and those that might be oposed were keeping their mouths shut out of fear.

Special Black Operations...to assinate or remove Sadam...and sons....a guy that is willing to go literally to ground like a rat is hard to catch...This might have been a vaiable alternative, but once Sadam and sons are gone whose going to take over? To a degree one still has the same problem that the US has today.

The problem was not in getting rid of Sadam....the problem was how to fix the place after Sadam....What NOBODY ON THIS BOARD takes into account is that the place was so badly fractured by 30 years of Gangster rule, and the fact that it was a country that only existed because of a European mandate after WW1, that it would be like Humpty Dumpty and putting him back together again. A MESS.

Now should GW have sidstepped the issue....well Sadam was one of the only rulers that applauded 911. He was openly defying the USA, at a time when we were on shaky ground...

Moneyguy1 · 08-20-2004, 08:09 AM

Objectively, it boils down to something like this, but I am sure some of you can do a better job of describing the chain of events.

The public was given reasons of why Iraq should be invaded.

We must therefore ask:

Where did the information re: these reasons initially come from?

What details did the initial information convey?

Were there caviats included with the initial information from the sources and if so what were they?

Was this information parsed in any way prior to being shared with Congress and the public, and if so, by whom?

If the information was parsed, what would be the motive behind such action, and if so, how could one group point at another and say "They believed it too", since the source would be the same for all.

Further, if the information was parsed or even simply flawed, who should be held responsible for the actions that followed?

Has there been a chain of statements leading from the initial reasons that have changed over time and if so why?

I have tried to be objective with the above. I hope the rest of you will be the same, and help construct a scenario that fits the questions. They are probably not complete; feel free to add relevant points.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

"Follow the money."

mattdavis11 · 08-20-2004, 09:01 AM

Tabs, I think several people on this board would be happy living under Saddam's command, or so it seems. Some really seem to like to be told by the government what they have to do.

I have a proposition for those folks. Band together, take your buddy Saddam, board the boat, and find an island. Oh, and take Bill and Hillary with you.

MFAFF · 08-20-2004, 09:47 AM

One problem has been replaced by another.

Its all well and good saying that for humanitairian reasons its a good thing Saddam is gone, but where is the same effort in a country which does not have control over oil and potentially WMD?

Its this inconsistency, real or not which generates the scepticism abroad over the US's real motive. If you guys went storming into liberate all nations under oppressive regimes it would stick. At the moments it isn't.

I don't think anyone here would prefer to live under a regime like Saddam's rather than their current system.

jm951 · 08-20-2004, 10:14 AM

Back to the original idea of this thread- While there is no disputing that SH was a very bad guy, I don't think he rose to the level of Hitler, but had we waited for the UN to vote JA on the Kuwaiti Anschluss, this may have been very different. SH was unsuccessful at territorial ambitions, unlike Hitler, and had a military that while well equipped, was poorly trained and led. Let's face it, the Republican Guard was hardly on the level of the SS or any of the panzer divisions in the Wehrmacht in terms of training or esprit de corps.

azasadny · azasadny's Garage

Whenever anyone compares anyone to Hitler, they lose all credibility with me immediately...

SteveStromberg · 08-20-2004, 12:43 PM

Gee art your right Saddams thugs didnt make lamp shades out of people they thru into Tree Chippers or off Buildings. Saddam didnt build Chambers to Gas people he use artillery shells.

MichiganMat · MichiganMat's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveStromberg
Gee art your right Saddams thugs didnt make lamp shades out of people they thru into Tree Chippers or off Buildings. Saddam didnt build Chambers to Gas people he use artillery shells.

There are "evil" dictators all over the world, and some 100+ wars in action as we speak. There are other countries that support radical Islamists too: syria, yemen, iran, pakistan. North Korea is making nukes. China represses its people. Russia is stomping all over a democratic resistance. And where is Osama in all this? Gone like a fart in the wind.

tabs · 08-20-2004, 12:58 PM

Of course a strategic resource and Sadams proximity has something to do with it...the flow of fuel CAN"T STOP...without it MODERN LIFE CEASES.... I get the feeling from the Liberals that that would be accfeptable to them...They just don't realize they are cutting their own throats...our life style in America requires hugh tradeoffs....you can't have it both ways....