Quote:
Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 7 2004, 09:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 7 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-arsenal
I am not saying that Iraq is exactly the same as Germany Pre-WWII, but there are alarming similarities.
|
I posted those similarities that I saw. Those similarities are in my mind the most alarming. What difference does it make if Saddam was inept as a military leader?
That doesn't change the fact he killed his own people on a daily basis. That he terrorised his own people, the same way Hitler did.
That being said, the allies could of stopped at the German boarders, outlined pre-WWII, tried to contain Hitler inside his boarders. That wouldn't not of kept Hitler from continuing his ethnic-cleansing. They reconized that doing that would be a diservice to the people of Germany, and drove to remove Hitler from power.
I never said Saddam was a brilliant military tactician. Hitler had his moments, but he got greedy and went after Russia, with whom he had signed a treaty.
The Russians had the same amount of soilders on the eastern front, as Germany had in all of Europe. So, its no wonder that they lost. Not to mention that Hitler had to battle on 2 fronts, once the allies invaded Europe.
Non-existent weapons program? There are confirmed reports that Iraq had a fully functional weapons program, up untill the sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. Including a nuclear weapons program.
As for Bush's speech, I beleive it means ALL terrorists. I am sure, you will agree with me that Saddam would be considered a terrorist by most countries. It was also proven that he supported sucide bomber families. So, if your definition of a terrorist is one that only defines a terrorist as someone that attacks the US, using terrorist means, then you are correct. Saddam wouldn't be considered a terrorist. If your definition of terrorist is one that uses terrorist tactics against anyone (including his own countrymen), then Saddam is a terrorist under that definition.
edidted for clarity. [/b][/quote]
Whatever. If you see alarming similarities, that's your business. Who the hell said Saddam was a "brilliant military tactician"? I certainly wasn't me. He was obviously a terrible military tactician because he always lost.
Non-existent weapons program? There are confirmed reports that Iraq had a fully functional weapons program, up untill the sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. Including a nuclear weapons program.
The end of the first Gulf War was a long time ago. Things have changed.
These arguments are so goddamn pointless I don't know why I bother. They were wrong. They said he was a threat and he was not a threat. Period. They were wrong. It's not just my opinion, the people in the administration are saying the same damn thing as I am. Cheney says there were no WMD, Rumsfeld says there is no connection to al-Qaeda, Bremer says there aren't enough troops there, Rice says they messed up, the President himself said they had an itelligence failure. You are contradicting the very people who's policy you are trying to defend. It doesn't make sense.
Be realistic ferchrissakes. It's over. The jig is up.