[Article] NY Post: "I want to kick the collective butts of France"

Clintons Cat

Not a major point,but still kind of interesting,
The four who are working most publicaly to find a peaceful resolution to the situation through the united nations.France Germany,belgium and Russia are the four countries that saw the brunt of the fighting on their territory in the First and Second world wars.

Manach

Re 1776, So at least now the UK is a colony of the US. Still France does rather strenously maintain it's own "zones of influence" in Africa.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
So instead the US industries funded Britains ( including their European irregualr forces like the "free French" ) and later the USSRs war efforts, allowing Britain in particular to fight way above its weight.

Well the British did have to pay for it making said companies very rich as well as bringing the US out of long economic depression. Before America entered the war, American businessmen were meeting NAZI's to discuss a postwar Britain. The favorite line I hear from "my fellow" American's "Europe likes to appease dictators" could apply to the US before they entered in 1941. A very profitable 2 year appeasement indeed.

I find it hypocritical to accuse anyone that dare criticize Bush or American policy as "anti-American" considering the many derogatory comments I've seen in the American media recently. Many not directed at the French government but at the population as a whole.

lili

well well well.
i'm french,
seems our american friends can't stand there are some countries who are not agreed with their policies.
but frankly, don't we have making front to a new sort of colonialism?
do we have to stand the dictat of this imperialism way to do?
IMO, i would prefere they look to the north korea, i'm more worred about this threat.

as for the WW2, and the pic on the new-york post. don't they understand it's exactly that, all those white crosses, that us, the french, do nomore want to see. we are sick of the war and all the countries in europa too.
do the american people know what means to live in a country devasted by the war, by the bombs?
they had their 11 sept, lucky they are to have only one day to remember!!!

as for murdoch, everybody knows this press magna and his relationship with bush.

ps :
sorry for my english, i wish be smarter in this language to tell all i got on my heart.

Sand

Well the British did have to pay for it making said companies very rich as well as bringing the US out of long economic depression. Before America entered the war, American businessmen were meeting NAZI's to discuss a postwar Britain.

Hey, its not communism - someone had to pay for it and the British seemed to view the lend lease scheme as extremely benficial.

Oh and lots of the British rich and famous were quite warm to the idea of a Nazi-friendly Britain, including some of the Royal Family, being German and all. Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis? Oh and Europes political elite lined up to try and appease Hitler, to sugar coat his regime and to sign up to make deals with it. Our own Irish leadership felt it was the right thing to do to commiserate with the German people on the death of Hitler - neutrality being the exscuse.

Sure, bussiness men went to make deals - they are afterall bussinessmen and operate only for profit; bussinessmen for example today are buying oil of Iraq. If thats the worst that can be said of them then theyre not exactly the worst Quislings ( oh wait, theres another ....my oh my, stones and glasshouses eh? )

do the american people know what means to live in a country devasted by the war, by the bombs?

An interesting point. Youre probably best qualified to answer this for me. The French do know what its like to controlled by a hateful regime dont they? Do they view the liberation of their country not worth the *vast* amount of lives lost in that liberation? If they had the chance to decide whether they should have been liberated would they say "No, Well stick with the Nazis so at least no-one else dies"?

How exactly is this different for the Iraqis? They live under a hateful regime. Would they too view a potential liberation of Iraq from Saddam and the installation of a democratic regime as being "not worth it"? With the portents of apocalyptic conflict and entire cities being razed by carpetbombing why are house prices rising fast in Iraq through demand, when they are a far riskier investment than land given the bombing? Why is the Baghdad Stock exchange rising? Could it be optimisim for the post-Saddam Iraq?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis?

A lot of French were as upset about the British abondoning them and the Americans not intervening as they were about the German / Vichy regime, especially after the attack on the French fleet in North Africa. And the Danish government realised the folly of taking on Germany from the start and did not resist militarily , in return for home rule, indeed quite a few Danes were sympathetic to Germany.

PHB

Oh and Europes political elite lined up to try and appease Hitler, to sugar coat his regime and to sign up to make deals with it. Our own Irish leadership felt it was the right thing to do to commiserate with the German people on the death of Hitler - neutrality being the exscuse.

I think thats a nice hindsight view on the europeon situation at the time.
Chamberlin was just like every other person in europe at the time, and he did not understand facism, and figured that appeasment was the best way to go. Its hardly as if he sugar coated his regime.
And what exactly does "to sign up to make deals with it."

You also have to understand that they had within their minds the horrors of World War One. They wanted to avoid war at all costs, and their policy was understandable.

As for Dev sending condolences on Hitlers death. I was never a big fan of Dev's neutrality but you have to respect him to overcoming the overwhelming pressure from the US and UK and to send condolences on Hitlers death was one of the shining points of Dev's policy of neutrality.

lili

huh?!
saddam and hitler>>>>same theories?!

Sand

A lot of French were as upset about the British abondoning them and the Americans not intervening

Youd think theyd have been more upset with their poor foreign policy, let alone the money wasted on their fixed defences:) As for the Americans- werent they taking a principled stance that violence should only be used as a last resort and we shouldnt leave a stone unturned in the search for peace yada yada - I mean is the anti- war movement based on priniciple that war is wrong, or that some wars are wrong and some wars are right - depending on whose being fought for it seems?

I think thats a nice hindsight view on the europeon situation at the time.

Hey give men like Saddam time and space whilst wittering on about the international community and who knows- maybe in time someone will say something similar about the situation at this time.

and to send condolences on Hitlers death was one of the shining points of Dev's policy of neutrality.

It was stomach churning. No human being should mourn the passing of that monster. The fact that Dev did in our time is a disgrace imo. The fact that its dressed up as a victory for neutrality is almost as bad. If neutrality means being sorry to hear of hitlers death then we should want no part of it.

You also have to understand that they had within their minds the horrors of World War One. They wanted to avoid war at all costs, and their policy was understandable.

Yes a similar view seems to be guiding the current French strategy according to Lili, Second time around eh?

saddam and hitler>>>>same theories?!

Men cut from the same cloth. Hey, neither of them are overly fond of Jews, they seem to have a flexiable view of human rights, a "might makes right" mentality, rely heavily on milatary power. Only difference is Saddam is far more likely to get his hands on nukes. Other than that......

therecklessone

Originally posted by Victor
A lot of French were as upset about the British abondoning them and the Americans not intervening as they were about the German / Vichy regime, especially after the attack on the French fleet in North Africa. And the Danish government realised the folly of taking on Germany from the start and did not resist militarily , in return for home rule, indeed quite a few Danes were sympathetic to Germany.

Throughout Europe, the countries which were occupied by the Nazis provided many willing collaboraters, much like our country under British rule! Was there not a regiment of SS troops raised in Denmark? And believe it or not, but the SS also had a Bosnian Muslim regiment. Strange bedfellows indeed, but apparently Himmler admired their discipline. And I'm not talking about conscripts here, but willing participants.

As anyone who has seen Roman Polanski's The Pianist(and I know its not an historical document) will realise, it is within human nature to perform the most despicable of acts at times, whether for personal gain, or simply for survival...

parasite

Originally posted by lili

ps :
sorry for my english, i wish be smarter in this language to tell all i got on my heart. [/B]

you were doing well until this line ! :rolleyes:

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand
As for the Americans- werent they taking a principled stance that violence should only be used as a last resort and we shouldnt leave a stone unturned in the search for peace yada yada - I mean is the anti- war movement based on priniciple that war is wrong, or that some wars are wrong and some wars are right - depending on whose being fought for it seems?

Actually the US stayed out of the war because public opinion was firmly against involvement. The American people felt that the only people who gained from WW1 were industrialists and arms manufacturers, at the expense of a generation of US young men, and so wanted to play no part in Europe's wars...

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand


Hey, neither of them are overly fond of Jews, they seem to have a flexiable view of human rights, a "might makes right" mentality, rely heavily on milatary power.

Sounds like your average American president then...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis?

Yes yes - just as I'm sure you'll find out that Saddam HJussein is not actually subjugating an entire nation all on his own. I'm sure you'll find that there are people...wait for it...happily co-operating with him.

Oh and Europes political elite lined up to try and appease Hitler, to sugar coat his regime and to sign up to make deals with it.

That would be a bit like the US funding and arming Saddam, right? You know - turn a blind eye to the gassing of the Kurds, sell him a few more weapons, keep him happy...cause hey....it was preferable to the alternate.

How exactly is this different for the Iraqis?

You're right - its no difference. The Iraqi's are a recently conquered people, still actively resisting the army which subjugated them, involved in a larger conflict of greater scale where it is not the independance of a single nation which is the issue, but rather the independance of an entire continent of nations and more, all threatened by the military might of an aggressor.

Yup - the French and Iraqi situations are completely identical. No difference at all. Except for all the differences.

jc

Cork

Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis?

THE french have economic interests in Iraq. Yet certain groups in Ireland think we should alienate the US to be "poor but pure". Yet France is not as "Pure" safegaurding their economic interests in Iraq.

There is a mood in the US at the monent to invade France after Iraq. Yet people believe that If Ireland takes an approach similar to France - It will not effect foreign direct US investment and our products in US markets.

Should our government withdraw grants from say a micro chip manufacturer - if it is shown that that these chips are being used in arms

lili

Originally posted by parasite
you were doing well until this line ! :rolleyes:

no kidding?!
i was right until this line?:D


guys, seriously, do you think countries who don't act for their own interest could exist?
cause if yes, there is some hope on this planet:)

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork


There is a mood in the US at the monent to invade France after Iraq. Yet people believe that If Ireland takes an approach similar to France - It will not effect foreign direct US investment and our products in US markets.

So we can expect Dell and Microsoft to declare war on France shortly then. Great, Bill Gates will thing he's even more of a God then.

There is a mood on the US to insult France, and disregard all she has to say on the Iraqi crisis, but then neither country has had a good relationship since the end of WW2. I'd hardly call some dipstick talk-show host calling for Bush to nuke Paris as a mood for war...

Cork

Ireland is dependant on both the US market & US investment.

Our politicians are right to acknowlege this.

Yet the "socialists" seem oblivious to this.


France is indeed protecting their interests in Iraq.

Yet the "socialists" also seem oblivious to this.

Notice the trend.

Why are they not speaking out about human rights abuses in Iraq. They ofen go on about Israel but never mention Palastenian suicide bombers.

I do not like listening to Charlie Wolfe (Red Fm) but I prefer him to whishy washy correspondants who never blame Saddam for not complying with the UN for the past 13 years.

Saddam would want to start complying pretty fast if he knows what is good for him. Charlie Wolfe said last night that the marchs were like focus groups.

He went on that we needed leadership. Leadership that will tackle Saddam. Defacto supporters of Saddam should not hide behind a peace banner with Iraqi, Palatinian or Communist flags.

Saddam will be given more time.

It is up then to Saddam.

Not Bertie, Not Tony or George.

Cork, this has been covered to death. Most people in here don't believe that Ireland is depended on the US Investments/Markets. I certainly don't especially with europe becoming alot closer in recent years due to the euro, and the EU itself. Ireland does receive bonuses by having american investment here, but alot of that is because of the huge faction of irish descendents in the American political system. We are NOT reliant on America.

France has been on the receiving end of multiple wars over the last two hundred years. America has been invaded once, and that was by Canada. Their citizens have never seen the wars that their armies carried out in, actually being fought in their own streets. America has always been content to lecture people about war, only because they have fought in so many of em, but never on their own terreritories. Perhaps this is why France and the other countries are against this war. They're aware of what its like to loose two generations of people to a war, and to live with the reminders of a war first hand. Beaches in Normandy, for years after the war, had un-exploded mines still active, just as Iraq does. America has never had to live with these circumstances.

There is a mood in the US at the monent to invade France after Iraq.

I hope america is ready for a world war then, cause i don't think too many nations in and about europe would like America trying to create a colony in Europe.


quote:

---

saddam and hitler>>>>same theories?!

---

Men cut from the same cloth. Hey, neither of them are overly fond of Jews, they seem to have a flexiable view of human rights, a "might makes right" mentality, rely heavily on milatary power. Only difference is Saddam is far more likely to get his hands on nukes. Other than that......

You're being too simplistic. Saddam is nowhere like Hitler, excepting the base line, that they were male, they didn't like Jews, reliance on military power etc. But there are other things to think of.
1) Saddam has never taken a complete people, and killed them, in the millions.
2) Saddam has not got the complete support of the people. Hitler did.
3) History & culture - i.e. in the middle east "life has always been considered cheap". Hitler broke the conventions due to the culture he lived in, tended to respect human life. Arabic/Desert life is alot harsher.
4) Hitler had one of the largest Armies in the world at that stage. Saddam doesn't. In fact he has one of the smaller armies, of the arab nations.

If you want to make a comparison you could say Hitler>>>>Stalin. But not Saddam. I agree that Saddam does indeed have a terrible history while being in Power, but by no means does it have the same impact as Hitler or Stalin.

Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis

Not true. If they were so happy to cooperate, then why did the French defend their borders at all? or why was there a resistance movemnent in operation right from the beginning of the occupation? If they were so happy to help the Germans, then why wasn't there whole Battalions of French troops as part of the German army? Vichy France wasn't an independent country, it was still occupied area, with german troops garrisoned within it. It was just allowed a puppet leadership, for publicity purposes.

Many nations, helped the germans by joining their armies, while at the same time being within the allies. There were regiments with Americans, Jews, French, Poles, Hungarians, Italians, British. Look at irelands history, and you'll see that the irish had troops in British armies right down the ages.

Our own Irish leadership felt it was the right thing to do to commiserate with the German people on the death of Hitler

Just as they did with eisenhower, and stalin. And lets face it, Stalin murdered as many people as Hitler did. Except of course that Stalin was part of the allies, and by default exempt from being thought about that way.

Sand

Yup - the French and Iraqi situations are completely identical. No difference at all. Except for all the differences

Good man, nice of you to recognise that Hitler and Saddam are brothers of the spirit, that they both have a habit of invading and subjagating countries, that their citizens can have a nasty habit of dissapearing from their beds if they do not agree, that the populations they rule over are terrorised into submisson by them, and that they have an utter and total disregard for human rights. Like you said there are differences - Saddams got more chance of WMD than Hitler ever had. Thats reassuring.

1) Saddam has never taken a complete people, and killed them, in the millions.

#

The Kurds?

2) Saddam has not got the complete support of the people. Hitler did.

Hitler never, ever, ever, ever won a majority in the German elections. Never. Saddam got himself re-elected with 100% of the poll in "free" democratic elections:|

3) History & culture - i.e. in the middle east "life has always been considered cheap". Hitler broke the conventions due to the culture he lived in, tended to respect human life. Arabic/Desert life is alot harsher.

Form what I know Europe (Christian ) and the Middle East ( Islamic ) share a general acceptance that murder is wrong. If Arabic life is considered cheaper its only because dictatorships are tolerated there when they wouldnt be tolerated here. I dont think its the average Arab making that value judgement.

4) Hitler had one of the largest Armies in the world at that stage. Saddam doesn't. In fact he has one of the smaller armies, of the arab nations.

Thanks to his defeat in the Gulf War, prior to that he had quite a powerful army. Saddam also has or is extremely close to WMD, something Hitler never had. He also possesses a far more advanced warmachine than Hitler ever had access to.

but by no means does it have the same impact as Hitler or Stalin.

Impact to whom? Us? No. Pol Pot was an absolute monster but to us he had no impact beyond something to read about in the news. Not as bad as Hitler then? That depends on who you ask doesnt it? Hitler had almost no impact on Pol Pots victims, and certainly not on the scale pol pot had. Who was worse? Like I said it depends on who you ask.

It remains that theyre brother of the spirits and we shouldnt shrug because their crimes have little or no impact on us. What is it they say about the triumph of evil and good men?

then why wasn't there whole Battalions of French troops as part of the German army?

Actually I believe the Germans did recruit from France during the war. The French navy also refused to go with the allies, preferring loyalty to the collaborators of the Vichy government. Oh, and the Vichy did help with the sudden depopulation of French Jews. Whatever I said about the Danish sailors, at least they can be relatively proud that Danish Jews had the highest "survival" rate of all of Europes Jews thanks to efforts to evacuate them to Sweden from what Ive heard.

Just as they did with eisenhower, and stalin. And lets face it, Stalin murdered as many people as Hitler did. Except of course that Stalin was part of the allies, and by default exempt from being thought about that way.

Exempt? The wests views of the Soviet Union and the threat it represented never altered - they simply viewed Hitler as the most pressing threat, a forgiveable world view. There was never friendship between the allies and the Soviets were utterly convinced they were being left to bear the brunt of the war effort until D-Day by the capitalist west. Hitler was viewed as the primary threat but the sheer distrust and mutual dislike of the two superpowers led to the Cold War.

ZeFrog

Originally posted by The Cigarette Smoking Man
NYPost:"I want to kick the collective butts of France"

A writer (PHILLIP CORWIN) sent the text below to the NYPost. It's been published.


=>
Re "As Cold War Link Itself Grows Cold, Europe Seems to Lose Value for Bush" (news analysis, Feb. 12):

It seems that Francophobia is now the lingua franca among American superpatriots.

Are we to expect that because the United States reluctantly intervened in a European war six decades ago, and in the process helped liberate France, that France must now blindly obey for the next four zillion years whatever a warmongering American elite decides is just?

Perhaps we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

It was France that helped America achieve independence from a tyrannical Britain more than 200 years ago. Should the United States therefore be obligated to pledge its blind allegiance to French foreign policy forever after?
PHILLIP CORWIN
New York, Feb. 12, 2003
The writer is a former United Nations diplomat

Bunny

Originally posted by Sand
Good man, nice of you to recognise that Hitler and Saddam are brothers of the spirit, that they both have a habit of invading and subjagating countries, that their citizens can have a nasty habit of dissapearing from their beds if they do not agree, that the populations they rule over are terrorised into submisson by them, and that they have an utter and total disregard for human rights. Like you said there are differences - Saddams got more chance of WMD than Hitler ever had. Thats reassuring.

Saddam attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait in the space of about a decade, Hitler invaded Poland, Czech, Slav countries, Overran Belgium, Holland, France, attack Russia, etc etc, bit of a difference there. Hitler had much more regard for his own people than Saddam. Hitler got closer to nuclear weapons than Saddam ever did, remember, thats in the mid forties AND Hitler started his nuclear programme quite late and without huge research, which he dedicated more to tanks, aircraft, rocketry, etc

#

The Kurds?

A few thousand kurds, not millions, and more and more evidence is being uncovered that Iranians may have been involved in shelling those kurds, alot were obviously killed in the uprising against Saddam post gulf war which the Americans failed to assist.

Hitler never, ever, ever, ever won a majority in the German elections. Never. Saddam got himself re-elected with 100% of the poll in "free" democratic elections:|

Yes that could be a difference.

Form what I know Europe (Christian ) and the Middle East ( Islamic ) share a general acceptance that murder is wrong. If Arabic life is considered cheaper its only because dictatorships are tolerated there when they wouldnt be tolerated here. I dont think its the average Arab making that value judgement.

ok

Thanks to his defeat in the Gulf War, prior to that he had quite a powerful army. Saddam also has or is extremely close to WMD, something Hitler never had. He also possesses a far more advanced warmachine than Hitler ever had access to.

Saddam's 4th largest army in the world was annihalated by the Americans in a very short time, Hitler had chemical weapons AND he was much closer to nukes than Saddam has ever been. Hitler possessed a much more advanced war machine at the time than Saddam ever did e.g. Saddam's t72's v American ambraam m1a1s in comparison to allied sherman m4 v german tiger tank. It took the world to take down Hitler and it took 4 or 5 years, it took the US a matter of weeks to squash Saddam.

Impact to whom? Us? No. Pol Pot was an absolute monster but to us he had no impact beyond something to read about in the news. Not as bad as Hitler then? That depends on who you ask doesnt it? Hitler had almost no impact on Pol Pots victims, and certainly not on the scale pol pot had. Who was worse? Like I said it depends on who you ask.

It remains that theyre brother of the spirits and we shouldnt shrug because their crimes have little or no impact on us. What is it they say about the triumph of evil and good men?

I think Hitler was much worse than Pol Pot, caused 6 million jew deaths, 5 million ethnically inferior deaths, over 20 million Russian deaths, x million german and allied deaths, etc

Actually I believe the Germans did recruit from France during the war. The French navy also refused to go with the allies, preferring loyalty to the collaborators of the Vichy government. Oh, and the Vichy did help with the sudden depopulation of French Jews. Whatever I said about the Danish sailors, at least they can be relatively proud that Danish Jews had the highest "survival" rate of all of Europes Jews thanks to efforts to evacuate them to Sweden from what Ive heard.

blah

Exempt? The wests views of the Soviet Union and the threat it represented never altered - they simply viewed Hitler as the most pressing threat, a forgiveable world view. There was never friendship between the allies and the Soviets were utterly convinced they were being left to bear the brunt of the war effort until D-Day by the capitalist west. Hitler was viewed as the primary threat but the sheer distrust and mutual dislike of the two superpowers led to the Cold War.

American cars, trucks and grain and one of the coldest winter's in Russia's history really saved them from the Germans, they held little grudges against the Allies, Stalin was paranoid and mainly managed to play Churchhill and Roosevelt, Stalin got exactly what he wanted and more. The Soviets take most of the responsibility for the creation of the Cold War, theres little doubt about that.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bunny
blah

Mostly good stuff in the rest of your reply there Bunny, but less of this please.

Either refute a point properly, or just ignore it.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Thanks to his defeat in the Gulf War, prior to that he had quite a powerful army. Saddam also has or is extremely close to WMD, something Hitler never had. He also possesses a far more advanced warmachine than Hitler ever had access to.

A comparison Hitler (H) -v- Saddam (S)

Long range ballistic missiles: H: no S: scrapped, suppressed
Medium range ballistic missiles: H: yes S: no
Short range ballistic missiles: H: yes S: yes

Long range cruise missiles: H: under development S: very basic capability
Medium range cruise missiles: H: yes S: no
Short range cruise missiles: H: yes S: yes

Medium and long range aircraft: H: large numbers S: some

Chemical weapons: H: yes S: possibly, suppressed
Biological weapons: H: yes S: possibly, suppressed
Nuclear weapons programme: H: advanced S: suppressed

Capability to produce large number of armoured vehicles: H: yes S: no
Capability to produce large amounts of artillery: H: yes S: yes

Radar: H: some S: large numbers
Radar manufacturing capability: H: yes S: little
Guide missile capability: H: little S: substantial

Disciplined fanatical supporters: H: large numbers S: some

Originally posted by Sand
Actually I believe the Germans did recruit from France during the war. The French navy also refused to go with the allies, preferring loyalty to the collaborators of the Vichy government.

But it was loyalty to France and to the French government that made them stay (admittedly the Dutch were different, but the Dutch occupation was different). Once the French government surrendered in 1941, the Vichy government (and perhaps the German 'General' government) became the legitimate government of France, as recognized by international law (morality may be another matter). Some French left and formed the Free French, most didn't.

Sand

Saddam attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait in the space of about a decade, Hitler invaded Poland, Czech, Slav countries, Overran Belgium, Holland, France, attack Russia, etc etc, bit of a difference there.

Any difference in intention? No, of course not.

Hitler had much more regard for his own people than Saddam.

Ya, he cast them way in disastrous campaigns with idiotic oroders like fighting to the last man and the last bullet in utterly hopeless situations where a retreat made far more sense. Oh and that were the people he didnt consider to be jewish, communist, unfit to live, and other anti-aryan dissidents. Yeah, he was a real man of the people:|

A few thousand kurds, not millions,

Again, any difference in intentions to wipe out a people? You really think Saddam wouldnt wipe them out if he could? Hes gone so far as to use WMD against them - only difference was Hitler rounded them up in camps before gassing them:|

Saddam's 4th largest army in the world was annihalated by the Americans in a very short time,

Most armies fighting in the desert against the rather incredible US airpower would be:|

Hitler possessed a much more advanced war machine at the time than Saddam ever did e.g. Saddam's t72's v American ambraam m1a1s in comparison to allied sherman m4 v german tiger tank.

Heh. I was thinking more in terms of a T72 vs a German Tiger - Saddams milatary forces are more advanced than Hitlers were - and the Nazis conquered most of Europe with surpisingly inadequate tanks to begin with:|

I think Hitler was much worse than Pol Pot, caused 6 million jew deaths, 5 million ethnically inferior deaths, over 20 million Russian deaths, x million german and allied deaths, etc

You completely missed the point. Hitler is meaningless to South East Asians, much as Pol Pot is just a guy weve heard about over in Europe. Theyd consider Pol Pot to be worse from their point of view given Pol Pot was killing their people. Regardless of numbers they killed ( is this some sort of competition ---- is the guy who killed 3 million "better" than the guy who killed 30 million? ). It doesnt matter to me whether Saddam is "over there", whether he poses a direct threat to us, or merely a direct threat to the unlucky bastards he rules, whether hes still behind so and so in the murder rankings - give the likes Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam enough rope and theyll hang you with it. Saddam is no different from any of those monsters and when there is an opportunity to remove them, they should be removed - you cant make a clean sweep sadly, the north koreans deserve some spring cleaning too but theyve got nukes making them pretty much invulnerable - are we to wait till Saddam gets his hands on nukes?

blah

LOL- how profound. I must meditate on this:D

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

quote:

---

Saddam attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait in the space of about a decade, Hitler invaded Poland, Czech, Slav countries, Overran Belgium, Holland, France, attack Russia, etc etc, bit of a difference there.

---

Any difference in intention? No, of course not.

Well yes there is. There was no hope in hell of Saddam conquering the world, however Hitler had the chance to do so.

Ya, he cast them way in disastrous campaigns with idiotic oroders like fighting to the last man and the last bullet in utterly hopeless situations where a retreat made far more sense. Oh and that were the people he didnt consider to be jewish, communist, unfit to live, and other anti-aryan dissidents. Yeah, he was a real man of the people

Yes. But hitler was always considered to be Mad. Also you should consider that, both the British & Americans have also told their troops to fight to the last man/bullet in the past.

Again, any difference in intentions to wipe out a people? You really think Saddam wouldnt wipe them out if he could? Hes gone so far as to use WMD against them - only difference was Hitler rounded them up in camps before gassing them:|

No. The difference lies in the scale. Saddam killed off a couple of thousand Kurds. Hitler killed millions. In fact with this case of argument, why aren't you comparing american presidents to Hitler, for carpet bombing, or dropping two nukes? Since these acts have killed more than saddam.

Heh. I was thinking more in terms of a T72 vs a German Tiger - Saddams milatary forces are more advanced than Hitlers were - and the Nazis conquered most of Europe with surpisingly inadequate tanks to begin with:|

you're comparing this era with the time of Hitlers era, without taking into account the changes. During the 1930's there was not much advances in military weapons by any nation except Germany. The majority of their weapons were initially of a superior nature, than the Poles, the French, or the British. Look at that first year, and you'll see that the majority of weapons used by the allies, were in fact little changed from WW1. At the time of the start of WW2, Hitler had the best equipped, and best trained army in Europe. Now compare that to Saddam, and its like comparing the Current Irish army to the American Army in size, discipline, experience, and equipment.

Long range ballistic missiles: H: no S: scrapped, suppressed,Medium range ballistic missiles: H: yes S: no,
Short range ballistic missiles: H: yes S: yes

The german Reich at the end of the war was the most advanced nation in the world when it came to Missile research. As such at that time they were able to utilise, weapons that the allies didn't have. Saddam, lives in a different era, where missiles of all types are a standard arsenal of most countries.

Form what I know Europe (Christian ) and the Middle East ( Islamic ) share a general acceptance that murder is wrong. If Arabic life is considered cheaper its only because dictatorships are tolerated there when they wouldnt be tolerated here. I dont think its the average Arab making that value judgement.

Actually i'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about the value of life. In the Middle east, its history is similiar to Africa, whereby life is cheap. Millions die in Africa, and nobody bats an eye. The value of life for these people are lower than ours by circumstances & history.

Hitler never, ever, ever, ever won a majority in the German elections. Never. Saddam got himself re-elected with 100% of the poll in "free" democratic elections

Hitler managed to win elections to get him elected, through a democratic process. Then he used the people to gain complete power. They gave it to him. Hitler had already the support of the military, and in the nation of Germany of that time, that accounted for a large portion of voters. Regardless, Hitler would have needed a fair proportion, of the rest of the population to gain & keep power. The German people gave him that power, and while Hitler was victorous, they were happy with him. I'm not saying everyone agreed with having him in power, but i am saying that the German People as a nation, supported his entry into power, the invasion of Poland, the conquering of France etc.

As far as i'm aware, the Iraqi people to this date do not support Saddam. I'm sure they will while they're attacked by America, simply cause they're the infidels that wish their land. However, the only comparison between Saddam, and Hitler in this instance, is the complete support of the military.

nice of you to recognise that Hitler and Saddam are brothers of the spirit

perhaps. But thats alot different than what the earlier comments have said. There were actual comparisons made between Saddam, and Hitler for actions performed.

Lets see:

Killed millions: Hiter Yes, Saddam No.
Conquered Half the world at any stage: Hitler Yes, Saddam No.
Actually believed he'd conquer the world: Hitler Yes, Saddam No.
Best trained Army in the world at the time: Hitler Yes, Saddam No.
Insane: Hitler Yes, Saddam probably.
Direct aggression towards europe/America: Hitler, well of course, Saddam, nope. Only against other arab nations.

Bunny

Thanks, you saved me the bother of typing all that out.

Sand - Drawing up comparisons between the Bush administration and Hitler is easier than trying to compare Saddam with Hitler I believe.

lili

Originally posted by Bunny
Thanks, you saved me the bother of typing all that out.

Sand - Drawing up comparisons between the Bush administration and Hitler is easier than trying to compare Saddam with Hitler I believe.

exactly my thought:)

Well since comparisons have been made, i'll make one, and lets see how you like them:

In Washington, President George Bush said he would not be deterred by global protests against war.

"I respectfully disagree" with those who doubt that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace, he said. War remained a last resort, but "the risk of doing nothing is even a worse option".

Sounds like anyone else in history? Yes, our favourite dictator figure, Hitler. Hitler was begged by the international community of the time, to stop his imperialistic tendacies in Europe, which he respectfully ignored. There is no stopping Bush since he believes God is on his side, and he'll continue to believe that he is in the right, past the moment that he begins armageddon.

Now this is where i draw the line. The comparison i make with Bush & Hitler is not based on what they have done, or might do. But my perception, of how they're "brothers in spirit". This is not a comparison that includes the german people & the american people either.