Good, Bad, or really sad Bush?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Sigh. . .there we go with the post breakdowns, now I have to defend every statement you misinterpreted.

Sigh. . . Guess someone needs a nap.  And please tell me what I misinterpreted?

Ok, just for you, just this once, no more quotes.  But it makes it harder to follow.

Are you implying that all of Germany supported Hitler?  Or that Hitler didn't rule strictly?  Hitler may not have executed as many as Stalin, but he did clean house, if you know what I'm saying.  And there were a couple failed coup attempts.  So, while I'll agree that it seems he was popular, I don't think he wasn't strict.

And what makes you say that Saddam's people don't support him?  He won the last election by a landslide, didn't he?  Ok, that was sarcasim.  But, I am not seeing proof, evidence, anything substantiated at all, that says his people don't support him.  Nothing any more solid then the reports of him trying to get his grubby little hands on nukes.  So correct me here if you would.  I don't see anything that proves that.

One other thing I'm not up on, so help me out here.  What economic trouble was Iraq in back in 1981?  

And, more to the point, is that the only difference between pre WW1 Germany and Iraq today?  Is that the best you can come up with?  Because there sure seem to be more things alike then not to me.  

Like I said, American participation in WW2 was questionable.  American participation in WW1 was questionable as well.  Why does that matter?  It is the nature of groups, especially in our nation and ones like it (where people are encouraged to voice opinions), to have voices on both sides of an issue.  Even after Dec 7, you could still find Americans against the war (most were smart enough not to be too loud about it on Dec 8th).  But you can still find examples of people being against the war even then.  Does that mean we should have stayed out?  Not in my opinion, what about yours?  (I ask again).  

Why does the fact that some people think it is wrong, make it wrong?  Some people will always think something is wrong.  It's the nature of our country.  So I don't find the fact that some Americans were against the Gulf War to have any real bearing on the current situation.  

BTW, you hang around lawyers too much, I can see.  Nice sneak in of the concept that we have been REPRESSING them.  That's a whole different argument.  One that I don't agree.

I haven't said all the peaceful options have been exhausted either, as I've pointed out many, many times.

Has anyone mentioned an eye for an eye here?  Anyone?  Where did that come from?

And my opinion is, if it comes to war, yes, it is worth it.  Yes, it is going to save lives.  Nobody can be sure, just as you can't be sure it wont.  But I can give my reasoning.  If Iraq is still hanging onto these WMD's in question, that they were supposed to destroy, to what end?  They've already shown that they aren't afraid to use them (or smart enough not to).  Why would they be holding on to them?  No good reason I can think of.  You?  Same argument if they are trying to build new ones.  And, I'll take it further.  It could (may, may not, no way to prove it) make another evil bastard out there think twice.  

But, most of all, I say we learn from our past mistakes.  We were lax with Germany, we should not be lax with Iraq.  All the reasons you have given about repressing Iraq sound like the reasons for ignoring Germany in the 30's.  I, for one, would rather be safe then sorry.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

He is evil.  Like I said before, it's not a contest.  There is no Wink Martindale playing "who's the biggest bastard of all time"  If you want to vote that Hitler is the worst of evil, be my guest, We can start a new thread all about Hitler, Gingus, Atilla, Kubla (the list goes on, and is depressingly long).  That doesn't matter.  He is an evil, murdering bastard.  I've pointed out the murders of political rivals, etc.  I've pointed out his willingness to use biological and chemical weapons (since, well, he's done it).  How many current dictators can you say that about?  A few, maybe?  So what.  Does the fact that there are thousands of murders in our country right now mean that anyone of them is less evil?  Does the number mean anything?  

What makes you think he isn't evil?  Oh, didn't he try to shell the Jews in Isreal too, even though they were not involved?

There is no way to show you the future, all we can do is learn from our past.  So I'll ask you this.  Was there anyway to prove that we were going to save lives in WW2 before we got involved?  

We didn't even know about the concentration camps, and all those murdered Jews until we were knee deep in it.  Rumors aren't facts, after all.  And even the rumors didn't come close to the truth.

But, can you say that it wasn't a mistake to let Germany defy the treaty?  Answer me this, wouldn't we have been better off if the terms had been enforced in the 30's?  Wouldn't that have saved (in your opinion) even more lives then fighting WW2?

You can argue that Saddam isn't Hitler all you want.  Nothing is exactly the same.  Can you tell me, for a fact, that if we are lax, and let Iraq off the hook, there wont be more death?  Can you tell me for a fact, that if we are lax and let Saddam do what he wants, he wont turn out worse then Hitler?  Nope.  You can't.  Just like I couldn't.  

As for the rest.  It's silly.  You seem to value the lives of Jews over the lives of other innocents, ok, thats your opinion, we don't need to argue that in this thread either.  

So, I've heard you refute things like "eye for an eye",  that were never brought up.  And I've seen you point out a few small details on the differences between 1934 and 2003.  But I've also seen you claiming that we are repressing them without backing it up.  And saying just because there is a large, vocal opposition to the war (the first one no less) that's a great reason for it being wrong.  

So try it from my side (these are all points I brought up before).  What is a good reason for being lax?  Wouldn't it have been better if we weren't with Germany?  Should we have stayed out of WW2 because of the vocal opposition back then?  If not then, why now?  Shouldn't we learn from our history, our mistakes?  And are you even looking at the fact that he agreed to do things, and we are talking about enforcing this agreement?

Oh, and you've asked again, so I'll answer, again.  This started back up because of rumors (they still are, even though some facts point this way, not enough yet) pointed to him looking to purchase nukes and the tools to create them.  That's what made this come to the surface now.  These rumors would be like the rumors of the death camps the Germans had.  Just rumors, until proven otherwise.  Could be right or wrong.

One more example to parallel Germany of the 30's and Iraq.  Germany lied about it's weapons and their sizes and ranges.  Iraq has lied about the range of some of it's missiles.  Iraq also has (not rumor now, fact) these rocket engines for missiles in a warehouse that are 5 times more powerful then allowed.  New ones.  Inspectors found them a while ago.  Gee, nothing to worry about at all (as I hear those words echo back from the past).

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I think the eye for an eye thing Loud was talking about was to kill Iraqis for the deaths they would cause Americans if they weren't killed.  So rather it is like cutting off someone's hand because they might steal.  I personally find that idea outrageous...yet it is in essance what is being done if we go to war now.

I'm on Loud's side that Saddam and Iraq is not similar to Hitler and Germany.  Germany had off and on been a strong power.  It was prior to WW1 certainly and so they had much more capability in gaining strength simply from having knowledge.

Iraq has never been relatively powerful since it was Babylon way back when.  They have never had the strength and innovation to dominate the world.  The Germans in WW2 basically had beaten all of Europe and when we joined then it became only slightly in favor of the allies.  They were extrodinarily strong.  Iraq isn't and really cannot get strong enough to even really push us.  Bush is claiming the war will take 1-2 weeks.

Another thing, we didn't have weapon inspectors in Germany looking around and keeping them from building up.  That is a huge difference.  Perhaps if we had that sort of thing back then, Hitler wouldn't have been able to come to power.  So I think having the inspectors is more then enough to keep Saddam from that if you choose to think he could even if left to his own devices.

[abe]

actually bondo, saddam's big ambition is to become the "second coming" of Nasser and lead a huge pan-arab struggle against israel, making the Arab world proud and strong again. too bad the kuwaitis didnt buy it when he plundered them. also, his idol is stalin. JOSEF STALIN for christ's sake!!!! not nasser, not the babylonians, stalin. i think that tells you a bit about his ambitions and way of thinking, don't you?

as for the 1936 weapons inspections: if france and the uk hadnt been willing to use military action to enforce the rules, what would have stopped hitler from reaarming? in fact, when hitler decided to remilitarize the rhineland that year, those troops had orders to immediatly retreat without a fight if they encountered any resistance. who knows...maybe hitler would have been overthrown by a military coup or somthing and that whole terrible mess (ww2) could have been avoided. do you see any lessons in this?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Well, I for one don't think Israel belongs in the middle east to begin with so maybe Iraq and the other Arabs have a point there.  That was a UN blunder IMO.

[abe]

Bondo, three things:
a) that's completely beside the point.......i was'nt asking you about your feelings about israel. i was merely making a point about saddams ambitions. he felt the same way about the iranians and the mullah revolution: use it to rally the Arabs and present himself of protector of the "Arab Nation". don't tell me Iran doesnt belong in the middle east. again, what do your feelings about the US or Israel change about the fact that saddam hussein is a megalomanic psycopath with an brutal police state at his disposal?

b) so where, in your opinion, does Israel belong, if not in the middle east? don't you think the issue is a little more complex than simply Arabs are right and Israel is wrong? for all the slack you are willing to cut saddam for his shit, don't you think you should at least look at both sides of the story? maybe you have, but i think not thouroughly. anyways, this is mostly off topic (then again what isnt?) so i'm not gonna get into this......

c) hmmmm, so the UN DOES in fact blunder at times, eh?.....interesting. in my opinion 47/48 was a triumph for the UN (eventhough there was a war) because it was able to compromise and acknowledge that the Arab-Israeli conflict was a struggle between two rights, not a right and a wrong. too bad it lacked the muscle to enforce its own resolutions back then (as it does now....thats why were goin to Iraq). you seem to be a keen advocate of compromise.......why not in this instance? the only true blunder of the UN is just that: it lacks the security council task force that was meant to enforce its resolutions if necessary and protect world peace, so the member states like the US, have to take on this responsibility. too bad all of the other permanent members are only thinking of how much THEY  would benefit from an attack Iraq and are blocking the US' efforts to use the UN to do it's job (i.e protect world peace and security). I hope next time France needs the approval of the SC to intervene in one of their former colonies, the US will veto their request. and this is my biggest problem with france's position: they are going against their interests by forcing the US to go to iraq unilaterally. ultimately, this will reduce the effectiveness of the SC and will end multilateralism the way we know it today (btw, france usually loves the UN because their on the SC and can make themselves feel important).

[The Ghost of Bondo]

1. I never said Saddam wasn't an awful person, I agree that he has killed thousands of Iraqi citizens.  I think he should be removed (by Iraqi/Arabs not the US).

2.  I think Israel as a nation doesn't really belong.  I think the people who Israel was created for should have been allowed to move to Canada, US, Western Europe.  If creating a country was allowed, there is pleanty of open land in the US.  Surely we have land the size of Israel to spare.

[abe]

Bondo.

i.) Do you know what happens to internal opposition in Iraq? They get beaten, raped, abducted, tortured or gassed with chemical weapons- and you are telling me that they should overthrow Saddam? Go look at some of this stuff on the internet. its pretty gruesome, but you don't seem to understand just how brutal and despotic this guy is. You are basically looking for an excuse to just wait until he dies, which is a little too convenient if you ask me. especially since his son, who is already in charge of all the intelligence services and saddam's henchman, is just waiting to take over the helm once papa croaks.

ii) So jews (you avoid using this word like it was slur) should just go to europe try to live amidst the people who just tryed to exterminate them? many went to or stayed in north america. others chose to fight and get their own country. that whole comment was somwhat ignorant ( as well as insensitive), bondo. also, by the same logic, we should just move all the Iraqis to the Yukon and take their oil........

[The Ghost of Bondo]

1. Why can't Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc support a coup?  They have interest in removing him to keep the US from doing it.  I never said it had to be people within the country.

2.  In which way was my comments insensitive or ignorant?  Because I don't think Israel should be there?  I wasn't saying anything bad about Jews.  As for having them be in Europe where you claim they were being exterminated...I said WESTERN Europe.  They were being exterminated in Germany which right after WWII the east part was part of eastern europe and either way I meant France/England/Spain/Portugal type places.

Also, one thing to note, prior to Israel's creation it Palistine, under the colonial oversight of the UK.  The area was occupied by Arabs and then suddenly they were being bumped aside to make room for Jews.  While the Jewish people may have controlled the area two thousand years ago when the Romans occupied it, they were pushed out long ago (which is why the Crusades went to drive the Muslim Arabs out of Jeruselem and claim it for Christians).  The Arabs occupied from then on pretty much even if they had some people like the UK taking contol of the area.  So they had the most right to the land and forcing a Jewish state in there made little sense.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I think the eye for an eye thing Loud was talking about was to kill Iraqis for the deaths they would cause Americans if they weren't killed.  So rather it is like cutting off someone's hand because they might steal.  I personally find that idea outrageous...yet it is in essance what is being done if we go to war now.

I completely disagree that it is in essance what would be "being" done.  No matter how you slice it, your analogy will be wrong if you make it out to be completely pre-emptive.  No matter how much you blame Bush or America, Iraq and Saddam will always share in the blame for what comes.

I'm on Loud's side that Saddam and Iraq is not similar to Hitler and Germany.  Germany had off and on been a strong power.  It was prior to WW1 certainly and so they had much more capability in gaining strength simply from having knowledge.

This means what exactly?  Because I don't follow where you are getting to.  

Germany had been a leading power in WW1, but was in complete ruins afterward.

Iraq had something like the third largest standing army in the world when it started the Gulf War.  

Not equal, but you are saying not similar either?  And none of the other things are familure?

Iraq has never been relatively powerful since it was Babylon way back when.  They have never had the strength and innovation to dominate the world.

Nor did Germany, as was proven.  Or did they win and I missed it?

The Germans in WW2 basically had beaten all of Europe and when we joined then it became only slightly in favor of the allies.  They were extrodinarily strong.  Iraq isn't and really cannot get strong enough to even really push us.  Bush is claiming the war will take 1-2 weeks.

First, It wasn't only slightly in favor of the allies.  Germany had allies as well (the Axis), and America fought on both fronts.  Remember, Germany fell before Japan.  It wasn't only slightly.  How many major engagements did Germany win after the US joined the war?  How many minor ones?

Second, it's not all about conventional threats anymore.  Saddam doesn't need the biggest army to be a threat (or wasn't the Taliban a threat?).  In a conventional war, Iraq doesn't stand much of a chance, I think most everyone will agree.  But, if he is ignored, it doesn't have to be a conventional war.  He could make war on his own terms, and not even have it point back to him.  That's one of the underlying issues.

Another thing, we didn't have weapon inspectors in Germany looking around and keeping them from building up.

Actually, there were inspectors.  They were given the boot and lied to as well.  It just wasn't UN inspectors and the USA had no involvement at all.

Go back and you can read reports about how when the Bismark was registered, she was "said" to be just under the tonnage allowed under the terms, but was actually over twice as big.  Same with tanks and planes.  Germany was still held to report and be audited (another word for inspection), but they lied and cheated, and all that bull.

So I think having the inspectors is more then enough to keep Saddam from that if you choose to think he could even if left to his own devices.

Those same inspectors that were kicked out many times, and got little to no cooperation until the USA started talking tough and preparing for war?  

Face it, without the threat of enforcement, Iraq was doing whatever it wanted.  Now, with a looming threat of enforcement, they are heading in the right direction, but not all the way there yet.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Abe, I think you've done a pretty good job covering Isreal, but I'll tag in for a quick second.

1. Why can't Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc support a coup?  They have interest in removing him to keep the US from doing it.  I never said it had to be people within the country.

Personally, I think countries like Saudi Arabia have an interest in LETTING the US do it.  Afterwards, the US can move out, and there's less bad blood between neighbors.

Beyond that, Why is it Saudi Arabia's right anymore then the USA's?  Any argument I've heard against the USA doing it would apply to any country.  

Also, one thing to note, prior to Israel's creation it Palistine, under the colonial oversight of the UK.  

The Arabs occupied from then on pretty much even if they had some people like the UK taking contol of the area.  So they had the most right to the land and forcing a Jewish state in there made little sense.

Ok, to use one of Bondo's arguments against the other.  

Bondo, you said they should have been granted land here, in the USA.  But the UK did the same thing and you are against it.

I mean, for the past few thousands of years, Native Americans owned this land, and it was only in the last hundred that the USA has forced occupation of it.  So to give away land that it controls would be right or wrong?  In the case of the USA, it's right with you, in the case of Palistine, it's wrong.  Right.  

It doesn't matter where the jews formed their new nation at (except for maybe Antartica).  The livable world has all been spoken for, so to form a nation, room had to be made.  The jews chose, what they consider, their ancestoral home.

I look at it more this way, Isreal, like pretty much most nation states, went in and took over land it wanted.  They just did it more recently then most other nations.  Most places on this planet "belonged" to someone else at one time or another.  So why is Isreal's claim any better or worse then Canada, Mexico, the USA, the UK, Autrallia, Russia, Any of the former Roman Empire, or anyone else for that matter?  They took the land, they've held the land, and eventually, they'll probably lose the land.  And eventually I expect the USA to lose the land.  It's just a matter of when eventually comes.  It's not like peace and reason are the norms for human interaction, no matter what you want to believe.  Only two ways any nation will survive that little fact.  By being strong enough to survive or by the evolution of human nature.  

[abe (to drunk to login!!)]

Thanks for the support bucc.....its much appreciated nowadays.

its kinda lonely to be pro-israel and pro-US lately, but i speak out for what i believe in. even if it means siding with a lot complete morons (theres enuff of them out there, take your pick) and disagreeing with ppl who have been your best freinds.......
btw, bucc. u asked what better claim israel has on that land than the USA, Canada or Germany has on theirs.......none really, except that israels goes back to the bible and 5000 years of human history.........but then again, that doesnt really matter much nowadays anyway (sarcasm)..........

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Abe, I'll give you a reason the US and other places have more right to where they are than Israel does.  It is called globalism.  Prior to the 20th Century, the amount of global organization was very little.  Especially by WWII the world was mostly connected and thus was in a better position to govern international affairs and thus at the start of the 1900s is when land rights were set.  Certainly there have been offenses to this, but most have been undone such as the USSR breaking back up into the independant countries.  One offense to the original set that hasn't been fixed but was rather dileberately changed was Israel.

True, if they formed a country out of US land it would be not really different other than it not leading to endless war.  But I wasn't suggesting really that there be an Israel, I think the Jews should have just become members of another country...after all, they weren't Israelis prior to WWII, why should they have a right to be so after WWII.

[tasty]

I think if the US is going to denuclearize anyone, it should be Israel. Who knows what they will do if they ever do lose their land. Many of them are just as fundamentalist as their Muslim counterparts. It's never good for a small, desperate, war-stricken state to possess nuclear power. And that's precisely what Israel is.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I think if the US is going to denuclearize anyone, it should be Israel. Who knows what they will do if they ever do lose their land. Many of them are just as fundamentalist as their Muslim counterparts. It's never good for a small, desperate, war-stricken state to possess nuclear power. And that's precisely what Israel is.

Tasty, my hat is off to seeing a completely logical argument that I can't refute but for a small point.  That point being Isreal should be up at the front of the line, right after Iraq.  

But, it's not easy.  It's easy to make a case against Saddam, he's an asshole.  To disarm Isreal (just nukes) you'd have to make sure that everyone else in the area was also disarmed.  You can't let their enemies, which have shown plenty of aggression in the past to have them either.

More then anything, I think that there has to be a long plan of eleminating nukes period, that all countries would have to sign up to (and agree to inspections) for it to work.  Because, unless you get a case like with Iraq, where they pushed the limits too often, you'll always be facing the argument of "why can't we have them if America can".

So, I agree with what you said, but getting it done is a whole different matter.

Abe, you are most welcome.  Some people don't believe it, but I can completely disagree with you on abortion, and still agree with you on something else.  

Bondo, so 50 years is all the difference it takes?  So, if Isreal survives another 50, would that make it better?  Don't forget, America was still fighting Indians in 1900.  Taking over the land.  It's gone on for thousands and thousands of years.  Isreal was just the last, big example.  Why draw the line right before them and not right after?  What about Ygoslovia? Or countries that were taken over before WW2 (like Ireland and Scottland)?  

There weren't Americans before 1776, why should there be after 1776?  The date isn't important.  

Oh, and I know many Jews that would argue that Isreal did exist before WW2, long before.  They'd say it was a nation, one that was scattered.  

Let me put it this way.  You are liberal.  With all the shit the USA put Native Americans through for so long, what if say, back in 1946, they decided that they were going to pull out one of the old treaties, that gave them, say, all of S. Dakota.  So they decided to annex it.  Make it the new CNAN (Confederation of Native American Nations).  Or Kansas, or North Carolina.  Or maybe not even a state, but just one of the large reservations they were kicked off of before.  You say you are a liberal, wouldn't that be the right and liberal thing?  Let them have that small amount back?  They didn't kick out all the American Citizens that live there, they let them go or stay.  But they have no rights as citizens, because they aren't CNAN citizens.  Would it be wrong, just because it was post WW2?  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

No Bucc, Israel surviving 50 years wouldn't make them right in being there.  Did you even read what I said?  It didn't have anything to do with time, it had to do with the establishment of a global organization to mediate between countries.

As for you Native American thing...if I'm to push the analogy to Israel, then ok, we give Native Americans South Dakota as their nation.  Then they start moving into North Dakota as well and have settlements in North Dakota in violation of the UN order that established their nation in South Dakota.  So they are in violation of that UN mandate.  Now their being in North Dakota irritates the citizens of North Dakota along with their neighbors Montana, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wyoming.  They attack but the South Dakotan army is stronger so they push out and take over parts of those states until the UN forces them back, but still they remain in North Dakota as well.  So now there is hostility between South Dakota and the surrounding states.  But a lot of support is being given to South Dakota while not as much is given to the others.  So now they have a country that not only has taken land that used to be theirs with the agreement of the UN, they've also settled in other areas not given by the UN, but are also supported so that they can't take the land back.

What I'm trying to point out here is that Israel is hardly innocent here.  They've done plenty to become hated by their neighbors.

[abe]

Bondo: I find it incredible that you actually think jews should have gone and moved to w. europe and n. america after the holocaust. Lets go through your list: France- half the country colaborated with the nazis. England- knew about the holocaust from very early on, yet refused to let jews into the UK or even 'Palestine'. Spain- fascists. Portugal-ditto......
the point im trying to make is that, after half of europe tried to murder you and the other half stood by, watched and gave them a hand from time to time, the last thing you wan't to do is live amongst them. some people take it as a sign that your not welcome when somone tries to murder your entire family and everyone just stand by and watches, occasionally lending a hand......you are saying jews should just assimilate and integrate themselves into western society, which, to my mind, is incomprehensible......hitler never made a distinction between "assimilated" and orthodox jews, so why would the next anti-semetic psychpath? And that was the lesson of the holocaust: unless jews have their OWN land and their OWN state, noone will look after their interests  or defend them. and right now, they are doing just that. You really don't understand the idea behind zionism bondo.......
Also, you're version of what happened in 47/48 is a bit one-sided. Israel actually accepted "globalism" and the UN by agreeing to the partition of mandatory palestine.....the arabs prefered to have it all and started a war to "drive the jews back into the sea". It was only as a result of that war that israel got more land than they were supposed to under the UN partition plan........but then again, that whole thing was a "blunder", eh? there seems to be a slight contradiction in your discourse: you place the highest importance in the UN as a meditator of territorial disputes, yet you condone the arabs rejection of what the UN says by brushing the partition plan off as a 'mistake'.
yes, israel has done some pretty nasty things in 50 yrs, but you make it sound like the arabs are complete victims. where is your objectivity, bondo? ask me if you want any examples of things the arab states and palestinians have done to make israelis hate them, ive got plenty.....do you know how israel gained control of the west bank and gaza in the first place???
and tasty, two words: nuclear deterrence. israels nuclear posture is purely defensive. saddam on the other hand, has a different purpose in mind. this is kind of like bondo's argument about iraq should have WMDs because the US has them.......your intentions for the nukes are what really matters. after all, the french have nuclear weapons too, but were not trying to disarm them. even for n. korea, despite their belligerent attitude, nukes are mostly there to deter an attack.
bucc, yes, jews are a nation and have been for the past 5000 yrs, except that for the past 2000 they havent had a state. but then again, according to bondo, its probably better they forget all that and just integrate. that would solve all the problems in the mideast (sarcasm).

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo, work harder on your analogy, before those CNAN's moved into North Dakota, they were attacked by North Dakota, along with other states.  After beating back attacks, they decided to occupy that land, as a buffer for the future.  

It's not like Isreal is the sole agressor there.