28-09-2003 20:53									#181
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Wow, you can quote! Have a cookie. But it does not back up anything you say.

The point is that Hitler made claims of peacefullness. The quote is from an Englishman who had met with Hitler. Heck Hitler made an agreement with the USSR and then stabbed them in the back. And are only "Mein Kampf" writing idealogues to be feared or confronted? The literature of communism talks about taking over the world. Yet we used a policy of containment with little border wars. Did not escalate to all out war with the Russians.

	28-09-2003 20:53									#182
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by TCO 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.

If you want to dismiss what they say in the briefings as irrelevant bull crap, fine. I do too. But lot's of people don't.

I just really hate it when they take the moral high ground then go on to dismiss the 'collateral damage' they've done. They're no better then, say, a hijacker who'd fly a plane full of peopl- er sorry, collateral damage, into the pentagon. I just wish Rumsfield would stop trying to deny it and admit that the US army is an indistriminate killer, just like every other military in the world, and that they have no problems killing a hundred people if they're in the way of their target.

Or killing a hundred people by mistake, for that matter.

	28-09-2003 20:55									#183
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by TCO 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?

Sorry, but you have yet to make an arguemnt that the time with Saddam would ever be critical. The critical time with him passed already, it was called the Gulf War of 1991.

	28-09-2003 20:56									#184
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap 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.

1. We were in the right with respect to Japan. What is your point? What we should have done was watch out more. Not confront them less.

2. What is an "imminent threat". Hitler was not an imminent threat in 1936. Still if he had been dealt with earlier, things would have been a lot better.

	28-09-2003 20:56									#185
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Dude, I can't believe you have the balls to claim that Saddam was a Hitleresque threat.

	28-09-2003 20:57									#186
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST Didnīt Hitler attack american Ships with his Submarines and drew the USA into war this way?

Now, you are thinking about WW1. In WW2 the Italians and Germans honored their defense agreement with the Japanese and declared war on the US two days after Pearl Harbor.

	28-09-2003 20:57									#187
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Hitler was dangerous and people were afraid of confronting him. Nobody was afraid of Saddam...

Yet if they had overcome their fear and dealt with the problem earlier, it would have been better.

	28-09-2003 20:57									#188
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

We all know that Iraq had the sort of industrial base to make them a world power like Germany was in the 30s and 40s...

	28-09-2003 20:59									#189
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse We all know that Iraq had the sort of industrial base to make them a world power like Germany was in the 30s and 40s...

They are not exactly the same countries, but the point is that it is better to deal with a transgressor when he initially pushes.

	28-09-2003 20:59									#190
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by TCO The point is that Hitler made claims of peacefullness. The quote is from an Englishman who had met with Hitler. Heck Hitler made an agreement with the USSR and then stabbed them in the back. And are only "Mein Kampf" writing idealogues to be feared or confronted? The literature of communism talks about taking over the world. Yet we used a policy of containment with little border wars. Did not escalate to all out war with the Russians.

And all you write only backs up what I said: history gives us examles to back any action. So using history as your guide is a guide to failure.

Take the soviets: we had plenty of comparisons of Stalin to hitler, yet the fact rsned out that Stalin, despite notion of world revolution and the sch had no such dreams, and there was no great war with him as with hitler.

The question TCO is not what examples there are in hisotry, bu why one picks the examples they do. You do not make your decsions based on hisotry, you make them and then go back to history to provide evidence. That is how the system works. So enoguh about the bits you chose to back you up: get to why you chose those and not the other exmaples of history that fit just as well, but do not ack your specific line of thought.

	28-09-2003 21:01									#191
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by TCO Yet if they had overcome their fear and dealt with the problem earlier, it would have been better.

Duh. But that doesn't mean that fighting a war is always the right answer. It was the right answer to deal with Hitler when he started making extraterritorial grabs (because each time he did it significantly weakened the position of everybody else wrt him), but somebody like Saddam was in no way, shape or form a serious opponent on the battlefield. Especially not in 2003. And he wasn't increasing his strength wrt you; he'd been sliding for a decade.

Bringing up Hitler is a laughable analogy when talking about Saddam. Maybe when talking about NK it would be appropriate (if a bit strained).

	28-09-2003 21:05									#192
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Duh. But that doesn't mean that fighting a war is always the right answer. It was the right answer to deal with Hitler when he started making extraterritorial grabs (because each time he did it significantly weakened the position of everybody else wrt him), but somebody like Saddam was in no way, shape or form a serious opponent on the battlefield. Especially not in 2003. And he wasn't increasing his strength wrt you; he'd been sliding for a decade. Bringing up Hitler is a laughable analogy when talking about Saddam. Maybe when talking about NK it would be appropriate (if a bit strained).

It was the right thing to do when he militarized the Rhineland. "Fear of Hitler" and "not wanting to deal with Saddam" are both examples of wanting to avoid a war.

And I agree that war is not always the answer. Nor should every transgression be confronted. But I also don't think that we should always wait until extremis. Sometimes it makes more sense to deal with it earlier.

	28-09-2003 21:05									#193
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by TCO They are not exactly the same countries, but the point is that it is better to deal with a transgressor when he initially pushes.

No, it isn't the point.

It's better to deal with a transgressor immediately and forcefully if not dealing with him means that you lose a significant part of your ability to deal with him later. In other words, when he's a significant military threat. If he's not and starts to act like a ***** then you have other options which are better. War should be avoided when it can be and fought when it has to be. Hitler in the Rhineland was a very real threat. Saddam plinking at coalition airplanes and playing games with weapons inspectors wasn't.

	28-09-2003 21:05									#194
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by TCO 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.

Yes TCO, and there is only one other country with such a bad record on these 5 points.

The USA.

	28-09-2003 21:06									#195
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

People didn't fight Hitler because they were afraid and so deluded themselves into thinking he'd stop before he got to them. People didn't want to fight Saddam because the "threat" he posed was laughable.

Not analogous.

	28-09-2003 21:07									#196
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Saddam's firts transgrettion was in 1980, and if you for a second think the world would come to revolutionary Iran's help... In fact, I am sure you were alive and kicking: did you think Saddam a hitler then? or in the 8 years that followed in which you could make the connection?

His second trangression was in 1990, and he got his ass handed to him badly, and barely made it. So where does the Hitler analogy go from here?

	28-09-2003 21:08									#197
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse No, it isn't the point. It's better to deal with a transgressor immediately and forcefully if not dealing with him means that you lose a significant part of your ability to deal with him later. In other words, when he's a significant military threat. If he's not and starts to act like a ***** then you have other options which are better. War should be avoided when it can be and fought when it has to be. Hitler in the Rhineland was a very real threat. Saddam plinking at coalition airplanes and playing games with weapons inspectors wasn't.

The real threat was that Hitler learned that he would not be shut down if he acted aggressively. Not the specific troop deployment next to the Rhine. But the knowledge that his enemy lacked will.

	28-09-2003 21:09									#198
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by TCO It was the right thing to do when he militarized the Rhineland. "Fear of Hitler" and "not wanting to deal with Saddam" are both examples of wanting to avoid a war. And I agree that war is not always the answer. Nor should every transgression be confronted. But I also don't think that we should always wait until extremis. Sometimes it makes more sense to deal with it earlier.

No, they aren't. Not wanting to deal with Saddam was an example of costs outweighing the benefits. Nobody was pissing their pants at the thought of Iraqi airplanes bombing Paris. Iraq was no real threat to anybody. Not the US, not Europe, not even frigging Israel or Kuwait any more.

	28-09-2003 21:12									#199
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Saddam's firts transgrettion was in 1980, and if you for a second think the world would come to revolutionary Iran's help... In fact, I am sure you were alive and kicking: did you think Saddam a hitler then? or in the 8 years that followed in which you could make the connection? His second trangression was in 1990, and he got his ass handed to him badly, and barely made it. So where does the Hitler analogy go from here?

The point is more about the people who didn't want to confront him. That is the thing that interests me. There are a lot of dictators out there. and they all have their flavors, Gepap. I'm interested in when a problem should be dealt with...and in the natural tendancy to want to avoid confronting a problem.

And 1991 was very touch and go if you don't remember. GW BARELY got his war authorization through. Democrats were widely against the war. They were only for it after it was successful. And without the US, that war would never have been fought. Or maybe we would have had to fight it AFTER Saudi Arabia was taken over.

	28-09-2003 21:12									#200
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by TCO The real threat was that Hitler learned that he would not be shut down if he acted aggressively. Not the specific troop deployment next to the Rhine. But the knowledge that his enemy lacked will.

Snooze. Hitler was a threat because he had "courage" (i.e. a willingness to use force) and the ability to do so to better his situation.

Saddam had the first, but not the second.

The first Gulf war is something reasonable people can argue about in terms of this justification. The second one is just a joke.

You'd do better talking to me about the fate of the Iraqi people.

	28-09-2003 21:14									#201
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse No, they aren't. Not wanting to deal with Saddam was an example of costs outweighing the benefits. Nobody was pissing their pants at the thought of Iraqi airplanes bombing Paris. Iraq was no real threat to anybody. Not the US, not Europe, not even frigging Israel or Kuwait any more.

Nobody was pissing in their pants about Hitler in 1936 either. They wanted to avoid the hassle of slapping him down. And even if THEY WERE pissing in their pants, that was still wrong. They should have confronted him earlier. And it was not just cowardice in Europe. There was a strong antipathy to war from WW1.

	28-09-2003 21:17									#202
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Snooze. Hitler was a threat because he had "courage" (i.e. a willingness to use force) and the ability to do so to better his situation. Saddam had the first, but not the second. The first Gulf war is something reasonable people can argue about in terms of this justification. The second one is just a joke. You'd do better talking to me about the fate of the Iraqi people.

I see this war as a continuation of the First. He did not honor the comitments made after the first one. We brought in troops then. Very similar to Hitler blowing off the Versailles treaty and NOT getting slapped down.

Sure Hitler may have been more difficult to deal with. but the point is still that both dictators were blowing off the treaties that limited them.

Sure it was easier to deal with Saddam, but that is a matter of degree.

	28-09-2003 21:18									#203
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Curiosity Yes TCO, and there is only one other country with such a bad record on these 5 points. The USA.

Well...maybe on the first 3!

	28-09-2003 21:19									#204
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by TCO Nobody was pissing in their pants about Hitler in 1936 either. They wanted to avoid the hassle of slapping him down.

Bullshit. Read some Euro articles of the time. They figured it would be WWI all over again. Millions dead, a whole generation destroyed. I understand why they felt that way. Don't read US **** about it; not relevant. US isolationism was isolationism (no trauma from WWI). Euro pacisfism was fear.

quote: And even if THEY WERE pissing in their pants, that was still wrong. They should have confronted him earlier. And it was not just cowardice in Europe. There was a strong antipathy to war from WW1.

I just got through saying it was wrong. Unwillingness to deal with reality from fear. Hide your head under the covers and hope it'll go away.

Saddam was a joke. Nobody was hiding their heads. But some people were and are still making laughable comparisons...

	28-09-2003 21:20									#205
	Tired of ads?

quote: And without the US, that war would never have been fought. Or maybe we would have had to fight it AFTER Saudi Arabia was taken over.

And did he have any designs on SA? As of August 2 1990, saddam could have just kept driving: there was no need to stop at the SA Kuwait border if Saudi Arabia was the aim, anymore than the Germans would have had to stop to consolidate Denmark when going after Norway.

quote: I'm interested in when a problem should be dealt with...and in the natural tendancy to want to avoid confronting a problem.

A problem should be dealt with when you are ready not only to tackle it but the consequences of taclkling it. If you solve a problem before you are ready to deal with the outcome, you probably have yourself in a bigger hole. And that is the issue. Bush dealt with "this problem" before he was ready for what was to come. Had in January of 2002 bush send a huge force to Afghanistan and a wole boatload of money and spent the next six months really tackling that issue, all the while behind the sceenes discussin what to do with Saddam and tyring to create a multilateral UN backed invasion force from day one, then, afte a year or so of putting it together coming out with the plan (even if only backed by the EU and not Russia and China) then we would be far better of. Instead this admin. lied by saying war with Iraq was necessary immidietly and thinking the world would buy the sense of urgency and dive in along.

	28-09-2003 21:21									#206
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by TCO I see this war as a continuation of the First. He did not honor the comitments made after the first one. We brought in troops then. Very similar to Hitler blowing off the Versailles treaty and NOT getting slapped down. Sure Hitler may have been more difficult to deal with. but the point is still that both dictators were blowing off the treaties that limited them. Sure it was easier to deal with Saddam, but that is a matter of degree.

Hitler blew off his commitments, and those commitments were serious impediments to future German expansionism. No matter how many games Saddam was playing he couldn't invade Kuwait again. No ****ing way. His power was long gone...

	28-09-2003 21:23									#207
	Increase the size of your Attachments

In both cases they wanted to avoid a war to enforce an agreement. Maybe they were more scared of Hitler. Maybe that is why they didn't. And in this case they did.

Are we only supposed to deal with threats when they are huge? How many more people will we get killed that way?

And I DO think that dictators read our willingness or unwillingness to deal with them in their actions. That whole Mao qoute of "advance with a bayonet. If you meet steel, retreat. If you meet mush advance."

	28-09-2003 21:25									#208
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Hitler blew off his commitments, and those commitments were serious impediments to future German expansionism. No matter how many games Saddam was playing he couldn't invade Kuwait again. No ****ing way. His power was long gone...

Maybe his "at the moment" cpability was not up to it. But he was biding his time. It was better to deal with it now...maybe down the line, we wouldn't have had the will.

bottom line. He made agreements at the point of a gun in 1991. He blew them off. We brought back the gun.

	28-09-2003 21:27									#209
	Remove this text

You've just made a blanket justification of war every time somebody breaks their word. Hitler was a threat and broke his word. He should have been fought immediately (a stitch in time saves nine)

Saddam wasn't a threat. Period. No more so than any other third world hellhole's dictator.

And talking about people getting killed, how many more people will get killed if you fight a war every time the remotest possibility of a threat arises? War is a serious thing, and the US et al made justifications that were a bad joke.

	28-09-2003 21:29									#210
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by TCO In both cases they wanted to avoid a war to enforce an agreement. Maybe they were more scared of Hitler. Maybe that is why they didn't. And in this case they did.

Hmm, lest make this scenerio. When HItler takes czechoslovakia, the French and Brits decide to take him on, no Munich. war is declared. Germany ends up winning after several years. World a better place, of course, no?

And what about 1936? France and Britiain invade, Hitler is taken out of power...next? Maybe Germany faces more revolution, communists take over, 30 years later a huge war, world ends... better ending no?

That is the problem using history: it is a set of facts in chronological order. Probabilities and possibilities are NOT included in that tally.