|
Interesting...but fatally flawed....as the reasons why action was taken in completely different..
Pre WW2 there was visible, flaunted evidence even of the re-armament...but there was no demonstration of the will to use it.. however once that will had been demonstrated...by a number of 'aggessive' acts; then it became clear that war was the onl option..
Pre GW2 there was no visible and flaunted evidence of rearmament.. secret dossiers were used to justify it all...not all of which seem to match the reality...but there was great posturing about what a big bad mo-fo Saddam was..and prior to GW1 how he was going to kick ass....
Now more often than not the two are inherently linked....as eloquently voice by Teddy R....speak softly but carry a big stick....(the noisy bastards are the ones yuo know won't hurt you....)
I think that Saddam fits into this later category and notwithstanding potential links to 9/11 supporting bodies his real risk was negligible...
And yes Churchill would have been regarded as a reckless warmongerer.. much like in his earlier years and in 1945...when he lost an election.
So...
|