[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 7 2004, 05:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 7 2004, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

That is correct. It is the United States who has taken the actions of the Nazis. I don't seem to recall the Third Reich being invaded by Poland. Then again, the Bush administration has a habit of changing history to their liking, so anything is possible.

Both of you state that comparing Saddam Iraq to Nazi Germany is to put it bluntly, weak. What is your reasoning behind this?

Iraq invaded Kuwaitt for the purpose of conquest.
Saddam had killed anyone that spoke out against him, offered any threat to his dictorship rule.
Saddam had used chemical weapons on his own people to squel a rebellion.

Germany invaded Austria, Poland, France, Russia, etc for the purpose of conquest.
Hitler ordered the execution of 6 million + Jews, as well as other minorities.
Hitler killed anyone that spoke out against him, or offered any threat to his dictatorship rule.

The US invaded Iraq for the purpose of finding WMD, liberating the people of Iraq, and to make the world a safer place.
The US also invaded Afganistan. Removed the Taliban from power, and the country is now on the verge its first deocratic election.
But that one is ok, becuase there is a known link to terror.
Invading Iraq is not ok, becuase Saddam is not a terrorist, and doesn't support terrorist.

If you remember back after Sept 11, Bush made a speach. In that he said something along the lines of the following:
We will hunt down the terrorists. We will not make any distinction between the terrorists, and those that harbour them, allowing them to operate freely inside their boarders. [/b][/quote]
It's weak because compared to Hitler, Saddam was weak. Not even weak but inconsequential. Hitler almost won WWII for crying out loud. They didn't use the term "superpower" back then, but Germany was one of them. He was close to conquering the whole of Europe. Nazi Germany was actually (unlike Iraq for the past decade) a threat. A really big one.

Iraq on the other hand lost a war to a third-world nation, then invaded a tiny neighbour and proceeded to get their asses kicked out of it and since then they've a strangled country with a rapidly decaying military and a non-existent weapons program. It's a ridiculous comparison.

What's the point of paraphrasing Bush's overly simplistic speeches? I heard them too. They don't change anything and they certainly don't offer a justification for the Iraq war.