the similarities of the threat posed by nazi germany and any islamic country (even collectively) seem to be minimal. the islamic world is too divided, too poor, and too weak to do one-tenth of what nazi germany did. the only way anything like it could happen is if most of the middle east became controlled by one ruler. that ruler would have to be great and have the support of the people. also seems like this could only happen if the shiites removed the sunnis. the US is still too strong and has too many strategically placed allies (s.a. and india) to allow this to happen. hypothetically, if, say, Israel committed genocide against the Palestinians and the West did nothing about it, then perhaps the Islamic world would come together. Still, all they could do is drop a few nukes on Israel. i cant invision how they could actually take over any significant country--let alone an entire continent. maybe in 200 yrs if the muslim populations of germany, france and britian are a majority. what am i missing? how could muslims be like nazi germany? please enlighten me.
The US helped Iraq in it's war with Iran. We should have known that either side was too stupid to win that war. But I don't think that means we supported Saddam and his regime. I don't remember us facing our own tanks in the 1st Gulf War. Those were Soviet tanks that the Iraqi Army couldn't find reverse on. Of course, the US is to blame for everything. Haven't you heard, Bush blew up the WTC?
The only similarities that I can see are that both have a fanatical facist element and the response of some of our countrymen is the same.......the pacify them and maybe they'll like us crowd just like we had before WWII. Sign treaties with Hitler=engage Iran directly and get a treaty out of them. The importance of a treaty with Hitler and the kook from Iran will have the same result.
What I've said is a far cry from claiming Bush blew up the WTC. Does this mean all forms of dissent register as equal to you? The world isn't black and white, you know. Those that try to convince us it is are oversimplifying things. People like Sean Hannity disgust me. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is a propaganda spewing machine disguised as a smooth as silk, baby-bottom clean, Christian-leaning commentator. There is evil in the world, but I believe what Hannity does is tearing apart the nation. Sorry, off-subject, but that guy irks me. So we're afraid of Iran mobilizing and spreading Islam across Europe? Their first target would be Israel, who could devastate Iran at the drop of a hat in self defense. Not to mention, if needed, many nations would rush to support Israel, and I think that probably even includes the US under a Paul presidency. The US does not need to be the puppet master of the world. We are stronger than that. Micromanaging everything does not work and is a waste of our hard earned money.
As I stated earlier the nazi's and saddam go way back. Saddam's uncle was someone who worked DIRECTLY with the nazi's in the 30's .Saddam was raised by his uncle and educated with vigorous pro nazi beliefs.Saddam followed many of Hitler's ideas.He even had his own "Night of the Long Knives" when ,on his first day of power,he conducted his own parliamentary meeting and called out 60 iraqi names that he said were traitors,including 20 from his own Baath party.All of these men were executed.A page right out of Hitler's playbook. Has the United States made foriegn policy misstakes by supporting what it thought was the lessor of two evils?Absolutely. When Saddam had evidence that Kuwait had illegally sucked out iraqi oil using a technique called directional drilling ,where the Kuwaiti's drilled down on their own soil,then over into iraqi land,the US led Saddam to believe that we would consider this an Arab /Arab issue.Saddam invades kuwait and this leads to the gulf war. Did we lie to Saddam ? absolutely Was it necessary to take him down a few pegs? you bet it was. Why didnt we go after Saddam in 1991? because most of our intelligence reports from then felt that without a hardline leader like Saddam ,that iraq would fall into a huge civil war ,thus destabilizing the entire area. For the U S to go after him in 2003,knowing what would happen with the kurds ,shiites and sunni's fighting each other,leads me to believe that the U S picked what it felt was the lessor of two evils.Getting rid of the problem of Saddam ,now and dealing with the aftermath was lessor to leaving him alone and having to deal with him in the future.
seems pretty stupid to take action based on the one weak vein of evidence that was recycled through every intelligence agency in the West. why try to make stuff up (ie yellow cake from niger, and al qaeda connection)?
It was more like we were unclear to Saddam. Our female Iraq ambassador was referring to legal disputes and did not state the fact that we would definitely not condone a military takeover of Kuwait. Saddam was foolish to jump to his conclusion that we would. He was already taken down to the bottom rung. He got his army wrecked in 1991, his air force flew to Iran and were seized, he lost control of his airspace and suffered air strikes continually for the next 9 years as we patrolled the no-fly zone, Clinton twice hit him with cruise missile strikes in retaliation for his assasination attempt on Bush 41 and for expelling UN observers, his country was under UN inspection who found and destroyed all of his WMD's, his economy was under embargo and he couldn't sell his oil except for food and medicine. Saddam was all bluff in 2003. And Dubya got bluffed. Isn't it obvious after the disaster of the 2003 occupation? We didn't need or want to own the place. Smart people were in charge and Saddam had been de-fanged and exposed as a paper tyrant. Current events have proved that the elder Bush's decision was wise. There were better ways to deal with Iraq than invasion (listed above). And you have given me a chance to use my favorite presidential quote. :yelwink2: Bush 41 understood the consequences when he wisely decided not to Invade Iraq in 1991 when we had a 500,000-man army on the ground. In his 1997 memoir "A World Transformed" he said, "Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy'. Had we gone the invasion route, The United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." If only the son had the wisdom of the father. I must disagree. Saddam was no threat to us or our allies and the sanctions, the inspections, the missile strikes, and the no-fly zone had rendered him incapable of international mischief. He had a big mouth, that's all, kind of like Ahmadnutjob over in Iran. It is important to distinguish between beligerent rhetoric and true capability when dealing with third-world dictators.
