28-09-2003 20:07									#151
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by TCO Feel free. Start with Roland's Stalingrad thread at Counterglow. And note that I had to hunt him down to acknowledge he was wrong. He was more interested in argument-winning or the appearance of it than admitting error.

Yes, you're such a biggie.

And we all know by now why the battle for Baghdad didn't materialise.

	28-09-2003 20:13									#152
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Becuase the chickenhawks were right and Roland was wrong? You didn't even list the battle not happening as an option. And if it had "happened", then I suspect there were possibilities of us being able to press the fight in different areas in a way that the Germans could not do in 1940s. Also suspect that Saddam's forcdes were not well configured to defend either.

Seriously...you were so damn sure that we were in a pickle.

	28-09-2003 20:14									#153
	Remove this text

quote: It depends on what you mean by imminent. Certainly he had a history of 1. Invading his neighbors, 2. developling WOMD. 3. Usind WOMD. 4. Hiding weapons development from inspectors (we know that he did this to Blix in the late 80s). 5. Of not following agreements (most importantly those from the 1991 war) unless held to it with a gun.

he was an imminent threat to his neighbors, perhaps. not to us. i don't buy the argument that he could have given womd to terrorists to strike out at the us--there's no proof, and no psychological analyses have suggested anything of that nature in his personality.

quote: But there were no "rockets on the launcher" threats. We didn't want to wait for them.

at least you're big enough to admit that it was preemptive, unlike some of the right's posterboys, like hannity.

quote: The rationale for the war (at least for me) was much more strategic than tactical. I suspect the same is true for the Bush administration.

i think it was strategic as well--to provide a base from which we could easily exert power over the strategically important middle east, thus side-stepping the issue of projection being blocked by water.

quote: Yet both those on the right and the left want to talk about imminent threats. Was Hitler an imminent threat in 1936? No. But you gotta take care of a bully eventually.

oh, i'm not debating whether or not we'd've had to take care of him. i'm questioning whether or not we had to do it at that critical juncture, with the doings in afghanistan still not completely done, while pissing off the un and the world's opinion.

	28-09-2003 20:15									#154
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I say nuke them. Nuke,nuke,nuke.

	28-09-2003 20:16									#155
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by TCO But there were no "rockets on the launcher" threats. We didn't want to wait for them. The rationale for the war (at least for me) was much more strategic than tactical. I suspect the same is true for the Bush administration. Yet both those on the right and the left want to talk about imminent threats. Was Hitler an imminent threat in 1936? No. But you gotta take care of a bully eventually.

The Hilter analogy is incorrect:

Germany was the largest state in Central Europe, second in Europe, and the largest economy.

2 of Iraqs neighbors are much bigger (Iran and Turkey), and the US would not care if he attacked one, and by treaty would have to defend the second, though the balance of forces is so far in Turkey's favor that it would not do much. Syria is about as powerfull, and we would not care if Saddam attacked them either. The only neighbors we worried about him attacking were SA, Kuwait andJOrdan, and we had our troops in SA and Kuwait, pls, Saddam was contained fully,unlike Hitler at any time.

yes, this war was strtegic and the bushies knew that as you claim, but the attck was not to remove a possible fture threat, but to eliminate an irritant and begin a "democratic domino theory": create a working democracy in Iraq, and all the autocratic Arab regimes that are the swamp which breeds terrorism will fall. Only problem there is that for suh a theory to work, commitment goes up after the military phase is over, not down, and this amdin. never admitted that to itself.

	28-09-2003 20:16									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler Yes, you're such a biggie.

And this is actually the problem. It's not about bigness. You hate to admit wrongness. Colon even said this about you. You will take an untenable position and twist to defend it. Heck, that is why it is so tedious to stake down your positions. To prevent the "I didn't mean THAT" defense. It's just tedious. That's why lately I just fire counter-trolls at your one-liners.

	28-09-2003 20:17									#157
	Full PM-box? Change here!

but 1936 was not a "critical juncture" either.

	28-09-2003 20:21									#158
	Increase Your PM Length

1936? i have to admit, my knowledge about the specifics of european history is considerably weaker. '36 was definitely critical in the east; wasn't it around this time, however, that hitler allied himself with tojo?

i suppose i could look it up, but i'm on dialup, so.

however, i believe that it would have been very possible to gather more support worldwide had we held our horses for a mere matter of months, to give the un some time to prove what we knew they couldn't.
there's nothing wrong with acting like the big man here, because that's what we would have been doing by cleaning iraq out.

instead, we acted like a bunch of arrogant prickish brutes--and thus lost out on a huge amount of potential support.

	28-09-2003 20:22									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by TCO The military never claimed that they could make sure all bombs land on target. Show me the specific statement from the military that is incorrect.

In practically every pentagon briefing they inevetably end up talking about how precise their weapons are, how they make surgical strikes, yaddah yaddah. They blatantly go out there and try to make them selves look like infallible gods before the public's eye. Then when they do blow up a civilian building, they do nothing but deny they did it, and when it becomes impossible for them to deny it, they shrug it off and say "whoops. next question please."

This is what I was geting at in that argument.. what, 2 years ago? that you can't seem to drop. Must of really pissed you off.

I never claimed that the USA could do bombing campaigns and damage only their targets, I claimed that they pretend they can and don't give a **** about the so-called 'collateral damage'.

	28-09-2003 20:25									#160
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Osweld In practically every pentagon briefing they inevetably end up talking about how precise their weapons are, how they make surgical strikes, yaddah yaddah. They blatantly go out there and try to make them selves look like infallible gods before the public's eye. Then when they do blow up a civilian building, they do nothing but deny they did it, and when it becomes impossible for them to deny it, they shrug it off and say "whoops. next question please." This is what I was geting at in that argument.. what, 2 years ago? that you can't seem to drop. Must of really pissed you off. I never claimed that the USA could do bombing campaigns and damage only their targets, I claimed that they pretend they can and don't give a **** about the so-called 'collateral damage'.

They are only pretending it in your mind. Sure they brag about the weapons. They're significantly better than what we had before. You need to get over your visceral reactions to Pentagon briefings. If there is a specific claim, please cite it. You are just building up a strawman to hate.

	28-09-2003 20:26									#161
	Tired of ads?

Precise is a relative term.
Bombs aren't precise like scalpels, you know.

	28-09-2003 20:26									#162
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed 1936? i have to admit, my knowledge about the specifics of european history is considerably weaker. '36 was definitely critical in the east; wasn't it around this time, however, that hitler allied himself with tojo? i suppose i could look it up, but i'm on dialup, so. however, i believe that it would have been very possible to gather more support worldwide had we held our horses for a mere matter of months, to give the un some time to prove what we knew they couldn't. there's nothing wrong with acting like the big man here, because that's what we would have been doing by cleaning iraq out. instead, we acted like a bunch of arrogant prickish brutes--and thus lost out on a huge amount of potential support.

We DID spend several months trying to get support.

	28-09-2003 20:27									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by TCO They are only pretending it in your mind. Sure they brag about the weapons. They're significantly better than what we had before. You need to get over your visceral reactions to Pentagon briefings. If there is a specific claim, please cite it. You are just building up a strawman to hate.

Sorry guy, I'm not building the strawman, Rumsfield is.

	28-09-2003 20:28									#164
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Precise is a relative term. Bombs aren't precise like scalpels, you know.

Which is why they like to use the term "surgical strike", right?

	28-09-2003 20:29									#165
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: We DID spend several months trying to get support.

i don't think we spent long enough, trying to sell it to the rest of the world, anyway.

	28-09-2003 20:30									#166
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hitler was an ideological menace: he had already writen down esactly what he would do.

Saddam was an oportunistic threat..he invaded only when he saw an opportnity open.

Lets look at his relation with Iran. In 1975 the Kurds rose up and Saddam moved to crush this: the Shah, ruler of Iraq's much bigger neighbor and a customer of the most up to date western military tech available, moves forces to the border and tells Saddam to back down. And Saddam has to act like the Shah's ***** cause the Shah could squash him and thw est would back their buddy the Shah. Then in 1979, behold, the Shah falls, the country in in revolutionary chaos, now ruled by a radical regime that not only advocates Saddam's fall as well (and tries to assasinate high-ranking Iraqs cause Khomeini hated Saddam) but has made enemies of the west and has no realtion to the Soviets: this once powerful neighbor who is was jerking him around now is down...... So Saddam invades to get a few oil-rich bits he always wanted. Yes, that sounds like a hitlerian figure bent on world domination! Oh, and if the Iran-Iraq war lasted 8 years, it was because, once the iranians had gotten most of their land back by 1984, it was Khomeini who decided to wage a crusade against the evil Baathists and prolongued the war for 4 more years.

And as for Kuwait, that has already being discussed.

	28-09-2003 20:32									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Color the thread dead.
Here come the Hitler references.

Can't make a convincing arguement?
Don't recognize nor accept facts?
Play that Hitler card.

	28-09-2003 20:33									#168
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

sloww, it was your side who brought up hitler...

	28-09-2003 20:34									#169
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Osweld Sorry guy, I'm not building the strawman, Rumsfield is.

Then give me the specific statements that you disagree with. Rummie is right that our weapons are way more precise. Look at the differences in collateral damage in Iraq versus Vietnam. More importantly, look at the greater damage we can do to the enemy with way less airplanes. You are still living in a digital world. Our bombing capability is way better than what it was 30 or 60 years ago. Better does not mean "perfect". Capiche. You really need to get over your visceral reaction to Pentagon breifings.

	28-09-2003 20:35									#170
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Q got you with your hand in the cookie yard sloww. Yep, it was TCO who first brough up Hitler, and who constantly makes the Saddam=Hitler connection.
I am simply showing the logical falacy involved.

Good laugh.

	28-09-2003 20:37									#171
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap Hitler was an ideological menace: he had already writen down esactly what he would do. Saddam was an oportunistic threat..he invaded only when he saw an opportnity open. Lets look at his relation with Iran. In 1975 the Kurds rose up and Saddam moved to crush this: the Shah, ruler of Iraq's much bigger neighbor and a customer of the most up to date western military tech available, moves forces to the border and tells Saddam to back down. And Saddam has to act like the Shah's ***** cause the Shah could squash him and thw est would back their buddy the Shah. Then in 1979, behold, the Shah falls, the country in in revolutionary chaos, now ruled by a radical regime that not only advocates Saddam's fall as well (and tries to assasinate high-ranking Iraqs cause Khomeini hated Saddam) but has made enemies of the west and has no realtion to the Soviets: this once powerful neighbor who is was jerking him around now is down...... So Saddam invades to get a few oil-rich bits he always wanted. Yes, that sounds like a hitlerian figure bent on world domination! Oh, and if the Iran-Iraq war lasted 8 years, it was because, once the iranians had gotten most of their land back by 1984, it was Khomeini who decided to wage a crusade against the evil Baathists and prolongued the war for 4 more years. And as for Kuwait, that has already being discussed.

1. "Peace in our time."

2. Saddam has often said that he wants to rule the Arab world. And unification of the Arab "people" resonates strongly. Maybe an interesting analogy to the German people.

-----------------

But the point remains. Sure no two situations are identical. But we should have dealt with Hitler. EVen at a "non-critical" juncture. That is how you handle a bully.

	28-09-2003 20:38									#172
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Q got you with your hand in the cookie yard sloww. Yep, it was TCO who first brough up Hitler, and who constantly makes the Saddam=Hitler connection. I am simply showing the logical falacy involved. Good laugh.

You oversimplify with the Saddam = Hitler claim. The point is that you can deal with a transgressor immediately or wait until things get really bad (i.e. a critical juncture).

	28-09-2003 20:39									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

but you handle a bully with a lot more tact, and much more judicious use of force.

the wise ruler does not rule by screaming loudly and carrying a big stick. he speaks softly and uses the stick when needed, quickly, cleanly, and efficiently.

we didn't speak softly, and that has cost us the respect and goodwill around the world.

	28-09-2003 20:40									#174
	Tired of ads?

Just nuke them. Hell. We have an overage of ordinance, don't we?
What's the shelf-life for nukes?

I know! Get the Iraqi government to outlaw guns!
Sure. That will work just swell.

	28-09-2003 20:45									#175
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by TCO 1. "Peace in our time."

Wow, you can quote! Have a cookie. But it does not back up anything you say.

quote: 2. Saddam has often said that he wants to rule the Arab world. And unification of the Arab "people" resonates strongly. Maybe an interesting analogy to the German people.

And Mussolini said he would recreate the Roman empire, which may have resonated with the Italian people. He even invaded helpless states like Ethiopia and Albania. He even used chemical weapons (in Lybia and Ethiopia). But for some reason no one ever uses the Mussolini analogy..maybe cause it lacks the power of the "Hitler" one, cause it is clear Mussolini was an opportunistic bully and not an ideological driven megalomanic?

quote: But the point remains. Sure no two situations are identical. But we should have dealt with Hitler. EVen at a "non-critical" juncture. That is how you handle a bully.

Hitler was more than a bully, he was an ideologue. As for what should have been done with hitler, that is a point in time issue with no relevance to today. You might as well ask what should have been done with Henry II, Hohenstaufen emperor of the HRE in the 12th century.

	28-09-2003 20:47									#176
	Tired of ads?

I think that when to act and when not to act has relevance. And sure we can learn from earlier times. Even from Roman history.

	28-09-2003 20:48									#177
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by TCO You oversimplify with the Saddam = Hitler claim. The point is that you can deal with a transgressor immediately or wait until things get really bad (i.e. a critical juncture).

Get really bad? Iraq in 2003 was weaker than Iraq in 1979, far less 1991. That is the problem with this line of arguement.

And you oversimplify by equating dealing with transgressor to War. They are not the same. There are levels of punishment just like levels of crime.

	28-09-2003 20:49									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Why do you think people didn't act with Hitler? Perhaps it was also that the time was non-critical? What was going thorugh those people's minds? perhaps they were anti-war and anti-confrontation?

	28-09-2003 20:50									#179
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Hitler was dangerous and people were afraid of confronting him. Nobody was afraid of Saddam...

	28-09-2003 20:53									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by TCO I think that when to act and when not to act has relevance. And sure we can learn from earlier times. Even from Roman history.

Unless you can point to some imminent Iraqi threat, what was the reason for dealign with Iraq in March 2003 and not, say, April 2004 after two years of setting the groundwork for an aftermath?

As for learning from history, what exactly does one learn? In 1941 the Us confronted japan's actions in the Pacific by starting a possibly crippling embargo on Japan. We had war anyway. And I am sure there are examples of Standing up to the evil guy..and then getting crushed by him even sooner than you would have otherwise. That is the problem with history: there is an example of everything, and why any action is correct, incorrect. You just have to dig hard enough.