[CDB]

Originally Posted by chauncy

This whole hitler reference I think is not totally applicable. Hitler was an active threat to all of the world. The power he had amassed and the power Saddam yield are not even close. Saddam was a threat , yes, but definitely not more than say Kim Jong-il.

Kim's got better hair.

[bpmartyr]

If we would have intervened sooner Hitler would not have amassed so much power.

[mindgames]

Originally Posted by milwood

Interesting wording. Assisting a country's removal of a barbaric, murderous tyrant (on trial now for crimes against humanity in his own country) is hardly an invasion (my opinion). And as far as the murdering, well, that was Saddam's specialty! Lastly, the idea that the US (or anyone, for that matter) will "destabilize" the middle east is pretty unlikely; place has been unstable for 1000+ years.

I'd say from the reaction of the Iraqi people, and 2300+ dead US soldiers later, that they may disagree by their actions with your idea that you are "assisting."

Regardless of Saddam's record -which was obviously bad - what gave the US the right to go stomping on in there and like a mindless imbecile on speed in a crystal shop and trash infrastructure and innocents all over the show?

"Murderous tyrant", ..............hmmmmmmmm 30,000 plus innocents killed by US soldiers really weakens your point - what does that make Bush?

Look at Bush's latest approval rating - 34% - it is now lower than Nixon's before he resigned.......symptomatic I'd say.

BTW there are much more murderous - but obviously not as politically expedient - targets the US could have chosen.

Hardly an invasion...OMG you are really pushing it there - ask the 72% of US soldiers who want to go home by Christmas and the families of the dead soldiers on both sides if invasion is a too strong term.

[mindgames]

Originally Posted by bpmartyr

That statement is so rampant with error that I don't know whether or not it justifies a response. Are you that far out of the mainstream or have you just totally ignored the history of that region. I suppose Hitler should have been left alone as well huh? At least let him massacre Jews within the confines of his own sovereign borders. Destabalize the Middle East? Are you joking? How dare us take a peacefull tourist and resort area and turn it into a bloodbath. If you have a problem with the most benevolent nation in recorded history wielding the biggest hammer so be it. But if we were so bad your little island continent would be a US state by now.

Your response in no place shows where I have made "errors."

Most benevolent nation - are you totally out of your mind!! Where do I start.....Vietnam, Contras/ Nicaragua /Central America.(where you armed cocaine dealers), Cuba, Middle East, Afghanistan ( Where you ousted a government armed the insurgents and are now fighting them!!)South America...the world is TOTALLY over your unwanted self righteous Christian fundamentalist inteference. Thats why all over the world, citizens are electing nightmare governments for the USA - look at elections in Central and south America and Palestine for example over the past year.....

We may as well be your Island state as unfortunately our idiotic PM kowtows to your vastly unpopular President.

[mindgames]

Sorry to be a thread hog, but look at this link to see just how "benevolent" the US is perceived.

An excerpt......

For 1999's session of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, Amnesty International put the United States on a list of persistent violators of human rights, higher than China and excluding Cuba. (Here is the full document.)




http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRig...nalHumanRights

[CDB]

Originally Posted by bpmartyr

That statement is so rampant with error that I don't know whether or not it justifies a response. Are you that far out of the mainstream or have you just totally ignored the history of that region. I suppose Hitler should have been left alone as well huh?

I don't quite agree with you here. Hitler had an obvious desire for territorial expansion coupled with the ability to act on it, which I don't think Saddam ever did have or would have had. This was brought to fruition because of the punitive nature of the Versailles Treaty, which helped to get a mass movement in German nationalism going. The situation in the Middle East is not similar in one crucial way: there is no nationalist movement. Nor is there really a strong Muslimist movement because of all the various sectarian and ethnic differences among them in the area. It would really be hard if not impossible to get something like WWII Germany going there. Many of their problems stem from post WWI divisions and interventions and they've yet to get a mass movement together and likely never will.

There is one crucial similar point between the Middle East and Saddam and his ilk and Hitler and WWII, and that is unless you blatantly ignore it the current situation was created/made worse by previous interventions by others, the USA, the British, etc. One could, and many have argued, that without Versailles and WWI, WWII never would have happened. The current situation in the Middle East goes back to WWI and interventions in the region since then. While you could say we're obligated to clean up our own mess, unless we learn to stop making messes we'll never see the end of it.

Point being, just like preWWII Germany these countries in the Middle East did not get the way they are currently without a lot of "help" on the part of the USA and others. However, unlike preWWII German there is and likely never was a world threat of the type Hitler represented. And even in that example, look at the results. The classic example would Czecs and Poles. Britain looked the other way when Germany invaded Czecoslovakia, but declared war after he invaded Poland. The relative death counts in those countries during WWII make it a legitimate question as to whether or not Poland was actually helped by anyone else's intervention on their behalf. And what happened after we "saved" so many of those countries in WWII? They were delivered into the hands of another set of brutal butchers in the USSR.

The war started because of treaty violations. The wholesale mass murder of the Jews only started after the war started. Is it possible that more Jews could have been saved by avoiding war? Would the Wannsee meeting and Final Solution have been pursued if German thought they could languidly go about expunging Jews through legal actions as they generally had until then, until war pressures gave a justification and a cover to do the unthinkable? I know a lot of people think of WWII as this sacred struggle against tyranny, but the tyranny that came afterward in the form of the USSR was worse in terms of deaths and the time it was in power than Hitler's regime. WWII is not an unquestionably wonderful war despite the Greatest Generation propoganda. It is a valid point to make that interventions by the west, the USA and Britain in particular, may have done more to escalate existing wars, WWII included, and caused more death in the past than our noninvolvment would have caused or allowed to happen. And one could argue that perhaps the people who got killed who otherwise would have lived would have preferred to live under tyranny than die in the name of a western defined version of freedom.

To put it shortly Hitler isn't a trump card. Bring him up and you have to acknowledge we had a hand in making him and escalating his power to the hyper levels they went to. You also have to deal with the aftermath of WWII, which wasn't exactly ideal for a lot of people for the following few decades. Few good things happen leading up to, during and in the aftermath of wars. Distance from WWII in time gives a lot of people the idea that it was unquestionably a good idea. Maybe in the end it was. But you can't deal with WWII and Hitler in a vacuum and ignore our and others' hand in bringing it about, and how we completely fell asleep at the wheel while worse tyrants than Hitler happily murdered away.

[Cosmo Kramer]

Originally Posted by CDB

Hitler had an obvious desire for territorial expansion coupled with the ability to act on it, which I don't think Saddam ever did have or would have had.

Iraq? Kuwait?

[Iron Warrior]

Originally Posted by Bobo

Iraq? Kuwait?

He was on the verge of invading Saudi Arabia too wasn't he ? No way we'd let him control all that oil

[Cosmo Kramer]

Originally Posted by CDB

I don't quite agree with you here. Hitler had an obvious desire for territorial expansion coupled with the ability to act on it, which I don't think Saddam ever did have or would have had. This was brought to fruition because of the punitive nature of the Versailles Treaty, which helped to get a mass movement in German nationalism going. The situation in the Middle East is not similar in one crucial way: there is no nationalist movement. Nor is there really a strong Muslimist movement because of all the various sectarian and ethnic differences among them in the area. It would really be hard if not impossible to get something like WWII Germany going there. Many of their problems stem from post WWI divisions and interventions and they've yet to get a mass movement together and likely never will.

There is one crucial similar point between the Middle East and Saddam and his ilk and Hitler and WWII, and that is unless you blatantly ignore it the current situation was created/made worse by previous interventions by others, the USA, the British, etc. One could, and many have argued, that without Versailles and WWI, WWII never would have happened. The current situation in the Middle East goes back to WWI and interventions in the region since then. While you could say we're obligated to clean up our own mess, unless we learn to stop making messes we'll never see the end of it.

Point being, just like preWWII Germany these countries in the Middle East did not get the way they are currently without a lot of "help" on the part of the USA and others. However, unlike preWWII German there is and likely never was a world threat of the type Hitler represented. And even in that example, look at the results. The classic example would Czecs and Poles. Britain looked the other way when Germany invaded Czecoslovakia, but declared war after he invaded Poland. The relative death counts in those countries during WWII make it a legitimate question as to whether or not Poland was actually helped by anyone else's intervention on their behalf. And what happened after we "saved" so many of those countries in WWII? They were delivered into the hands of another set of brutal butchers in the USSR.

The war started because of treaty violations. The wholesale mass murder of the Jews only started after the war started. Is it possible that more Jews could have been saved by avoiding war? Would the Wannsee meeting and Final Solution have been pursued if German thought they could languidly go about expunging Jews through legal actions as they generally had until then, until war pressures gave a justification and a cover to do the unthinkable? I know a lot of people think of WWII as this sacred struggle against tyranny, but the tyranny that came afterward in the form of the USSR was worse in terms of deaths and the time it was in power than Hitler's regime. WWII is not an unquestionably wonderful war despite the Greatest Generation propoganda. It is a valid point to make that interventions by the west, the USA and Britain in particular, may have done more to escalate existing wars, WWII included, and caused more death in the past than our noninvolvment would have caused or allowed to happen. And one could argue that perhaps the people who got killed who otherwise would have lived would have preferred to live under tyranny than die in the name of a western defined version of freedom.

To put it shortly Hitler isn't a trump card. Bring him up and you have to acknowledge we had a hand in making him and escalating his power to the hyper levels they went to. You also have to deal with the aftermath of WWII, which wasn't exactly ideal for a lot of people for the following few decades. Few good things happen leading up to, during and in the aftermath of wars. Distance from WWII in time gives a lot of people the idea that it was unquestionably a good idea. Maybe in the end it was. But you can't deal with WWII and Hitler in a vacuum and ignore our and others' hand in bringing it about, and how we completely fell asleep at the wheel while worse tyrants than Hitler happily murdered away.

No offense CDB, but this sounds more like a politicans spin on history to me. By adapting this viewpoint I could tie in causes for todays events all the way back to the middle ages.

Nationalistic frenzy and the subsequent wars they have caused were around before US was ever a significant figure in European affairs. Germany's declaration of war on Russia in 1914 had little to do with the US (since the people favored isolation at that point in time) and the majority of the war was fought without US intervention (other than trade). US intervention escalated the war but also helped end it sooner. By using your criteria I could say the Black Hand had more influence in "making" Hitler than anytihng the US did.


I don't tihnk anyone here is stating the US is 100% innocent. Far from it, but I tend to see those with very passionate ideological point of views lose a very large grip on reality. (not you CDB, I think you are pretty level headed)


"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke

[MaynardMeek]

all i know is.. he is looking good! Bobo what exactly have you been doing with him?

[snakebyte05]

I also believe the reason for bush's low ratings is the press he gets. Whether you like it or not, all he does get is bad press, you usually do not hear good things on him on general news. Many americans do not take the time to read into things, they live their private lives watching tv and not interacting with the public domain.

[MaynardMeek]

yeah he is at 41% today.. his "lowest in his history" even though last week he was at 34% the lowest in his history

[bioman]

His ratings have a lot more to do with the way he carries himself in public..and that's not the media's fault.

Clinton got nothing but bad press in last 2 years..but he sailed out of office with some impressive approval ratings nonetheless. The difference is he had CHARISMA and putting all politics aside for a moment, you gotta admit this is one thing that GW sorely lacks. Having Cheney as a VP only makes things worse in this area as Cheney has even lower approval ratings.

Despite the glowing economy, people are not happy with the way things are being run and that is a testament not to the media's magical ability to make everyone think the same thing, but to the public's perception that GW is detatched from a lot of issues, that Iraq was not the bed of roses people thought it was going to be, and IMO there's a growing sense of dread over the burgeoning deficit. Nobody sleeps well knowing that their credit card bills are going to be tremendous in years to come.

[MaynardMeek]

no no i dont care about what the numbers mean.. i care about why media on both occasions are saying these numbers are the lowest in his history... i mean come on.. i even know 41 is higher than 34

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Bobo

Iraq? Kuwait?

I see your point, but it's a long step from Kuwait to say, Poland, or even just Iran, Syria, etc. Iraq had been at war with Kuwait and Iran before, hell I think they've been at war with every other nation in the area and hadn't accomplished much in the end. Hitler on the other hand basically rode into Poland and left the Brits standing there with that Who Farted look on their faces, relatively speaking of course. that Saddam might have wanted to dominate the world I'd allow as a possibility. Could he have though, is I think the question the answer to which should govern our response. Some madmen need to be locked up, others you can just smile at and let be, other's need a leash but no major looking after, just an occasionaly hand wiping their butts, etc.

No offense CDB, but this sounds more like a politicans spin on history to me. By adapting this viewpoint I could tie in causes for todays events all the way back to the middle ages.

I don't doubt a lefty would like to point to some of it's aspects to support their ideas, but they'd also have to ignore others. Like the fact that almost every dictatorship has had right or left wing version of socialism as their main political program.

Nationalistic frenzy and the subsequent wars they have caused were around before US was ever a significant figure in European affairs. Germany's declaration of war on Russia in 1914 had little to do with the US (since the people favored isolation at that point in time) and the majority of the war was fought without US intervention (other than trade). US intervention escalated the war but also helped end it sooner. By using your criteria I could say the Black Hand had more influence in "making" Hitler than anytihng the US did.

There could be a lot of claims as to who was most responsible, but that wouldn't be my point in the end. It would be that we and quite possibly the people who were being victimized would be better off in the short and long term if interference in foreign affairs was kept to a minimum. So far as I know the Black Hand was a nationalist response to previous imperialist/interventionist tendencies. Things like this keep going and keep escalating, but generally things were okay for those who did not interfere. That was in fact the major thrust behind the first stirrings of international law: protection of neutral's rights. "He kept us out of war," used to be a compliment, now it's "He sat idly by" while whoever the victim of the minute happens to be was getting bloodied. There used to be honor in standing idly by because people knew whatever moral satisfaction involvment might bring in the short term, in the long term all that would be accomplished is a mingling of a once neutral nation's interests with those of nations who continually war.

In order to take the Wilsonian route and be the cop on the corner we have to pick a good guy and a bad guy, and sit on the bad guy and then buy the good guy a drink. Internationally speaking. But, in the end since no one's hands are clean whoever we help eventually turns out to be an arbitrary decision based on our political needs/desires of the moment, and in that respect we end up at best setting aside fuel for a future confalguration to break out which we will inevitably play a role in, or acting as Patterson's Humanitarian with a Guillotine, visiting our idea of help on people who, if they needed it would have asked for it, and were they competent would not have needed it. Involvment doesn't seem to lead to any good, for the individual or the nation, in the long term and often in the short term as well.

I don't tihnk anyone here is stating the US is 100% innocent. Far from it, but I tend to see those with very passionate ideological point of views lose a very large grip on reality. (not you CDB, I think you are pretty level headed)

My head is far from level. Literally, I have dent in the top of it from an accident when I was kid.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke

I believe this quote, but good men when they act in the name of nations and ideals, and under the cover of a mass movement that obliterates blame for poor decision making, well their actions which I would otherwise trust on an individal level seem to take on a dangerous edge.