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

lili

completly agree with you klaz:)
sorry, my english doesn't give me the possibility to be more chatting but there is people here who talk very well and i couldn't say better then them:)

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
Sounds like anyone else in history? Yes, our favourite dictator figure, Hitler.

If anyone, it sounds more like Churchill. I don't remember Hitler ever arguing that a brutal dictator should not be appeased. Churchill was very much a fringe politician in Britain in the 1930s -- he was vilified by sections of the press as a warmonger for his arguments against appeasement of you-know-who.

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".

Likewise for my comparison with Churchill. I'm pretty sure Bush sees himself as a Churchill figure. Both were "old-fashioned" patriotic unilateralists, opposed to appeasement in any form. Just that Bush is nowhere near as articulate as Churchill. And another difference, of course, is that Churchill turned out to be absolutely right, and we have yet to see whether Bush is right or not

Cork

I think that the fact Saddam has not co-operated with the UN for 13 years is being conveniently forgot.

I think that Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people and invading Kuwait is also brushed aside.

There was also burning of the oil fields?

Then his lack of active co-operation with the current UN resolution.

Yet in the march last weekend - Saddam was seem as a defacto poster child a small minority of the crowd.

Geoge Bush has deployed troops - this is an incentive for this facist dictator to comply with the UN resolution.

I think, if Geoge W waits for a second resolution - France, Germany and the EU will be 100% behind him.

Comparing Geoge W to Hitler is an insult to the US. We need to get away from this type of spiel that is probably had its day with the Berlin Wall.

Saddam's time to comply is running out.

It is time for the UN to take action.

The Cigarette Smoking Man

Another article in Sun this morning:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2782393.stm

Is it just coincidence that all of these Newspapers are owned by Newscorp...

If anyone, it sounds more like Churchill. I don't remember Hitler ever arguing that a brutal dictator should not be appeased. Churchill was very much a fringe politician in Britain in the 1930s -- he was vilified by sections of the press as a warmonger for his arguments against appeasement of you-know-who.

Perhaps so. But again you're just expanding on the point. the comparison between Hitler & Saddam, should only be made on a personality level, not for acts that have been made.

Likewise for my comparison with Churchill. I'm pretty sure Bush sees himself as a Churchill figure. Both were "old-fashioned" patriotic unilateralists, opposed to appeasement in any form. Just that Bush is nowhere near as articulate as Churchill. And another difference, of course, is that Churchill turned out to be absolutely right, and we have yet to see whether Bush is right or not

I'm sure Hitler had a figure that he saw himself likened to in his own mind. He saw what he did as being right, just as Saddam, Bush, and Churchill did. Also in Churchills case there were more evidence that Hitler was mobilising germany, and that he was a threat to european peace. There is very little evidence here.

I think that the fact Saddam has not co-operated with the UN for 13 years is being conveniently forgot.

No its not. being forgotten. However what i find funny, is that people think that Iraq is the only country in history to avoid co-operating with an organisation that tells them how to run their country.

I think that Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people and invading Kuwait is also brushed aside

Again i disagree. Its not being forgotten, but other countries have done far worse things, and thats not being thrown at them.

Iraq invaded Kuwait..... so what? America plans to invade Iraq. America invaded Afghanistan. Whats the difference?

In regards to the use of chemical weapons, its a terrible thing. But the US plan to kill more people with the use of their conventional weapons than Saddam did. Also consider that there wouldn't have been so much uproar, if Saddam had shot them. Its the use of Chemical weapons that has everyone shouting, not that he killed the kurds.

There was also burning of the oil fields?

if you're talking abt the Kuwait fields, then yes you have a point. But again, as a result of that his country has been under sanctions for 13 years. I think the Iraqi people have paid for his burning of the oil fields.

Then his lack of active co-operation with the current UN resolution.

You said that at the start of your post, which i've answered. why repeat it?

Yet in the march last weekend - Saddam was seem as a defacto poster child a small minority of the crowd

defacto poster child? explain please.

Geoge Bush has deployed troops - this is an incentive for this facist dictator to comply with the UN resolution

Point 1: as far as i'm aware Saddam, is not a facist. A dictator yes, but a facist, no.
Point 2: The only incentive for Saddam is to build up more troops. Co-operation with the UN, will not come about because of threats from a military force. Otherwise, Saddam would have co-operated 13 years ago. And the reason for Bush deploying troops has nothing to do with causing Saddam to co-operate. He's just getting ready to invade.

I think, if Geoge W waits for a second resolution - France, Germany and the EU will be 100% behind him

Perhaps so. I don't know. But I hope they'll be 100% against him, should the resolution go against this invasion.

Comparing Geoge W to Hitler is an insult to the US. We need to get away from this type of spiel that is probably had its day with the Berlin Wall.

And what comparing Saddam to Hitler, is not an insult to Iraq?

Saddam's time to comply is running out.

Saddam HAS no time to comply. America will invade regardless of whether Saddam complies or not. America will never be satisified with the level that Saddam complies, since its not in their interests that the Un is satisfied.

It is time for the UN to take action

I agree. But against America. To stop a country from threatening to break the peace.

This is what cracks me up. Everyone looks back 13 years, and thinks like it was yesterday. Yes, Saddam, is an awful dictator, and yes, in the past he's made aggressive moves against his neighbours. But tell me this: Why the sudden uproar? What has Saddam done in the last year, that has caused him to become such a threat? I agree that Saddam shouldn't be in power, but then i believe the same for most rulers in africa & south america. Hell i don't think Bush should be in power, but that still doesn't warrant this buildup of animosity against Iraq.

Cork

No its not. being forgotten. However what i find funny, is that people think that Iraq is the only country in history to avoid co-operating with an organisation that tells them how to run their country.

The UN needs to make sure that it will be co-operated with. Dr. Blix has criticised Saddam for his less than active co-operation.

If Saddam does not cop on and co-operate fully - they will be war.

This is not down to the UN but Saddam.

but other countries have done far worse things, and thats not being thrown at them.

This is no excuse for the likes of Saddam.

Saddam HAS no time to comply.

He has been given time. Do you think that this ductator - does not know the weapons he has? He would take him very little time to comply.


He is giving the UN the complete run around.

Hell i don't think Bush should be in power

I think that since the US presentail election - Geoge W has increased his mandate by getting over both houses of congress.

Yet in the march last weekend - Saddam was seem as a defacto poster child a small minority of the crowd

A lot of Anti US posters - Very few criticising Iraq. Even for they way he is treating the UN - which is unacceptable.

He has been given time. Do you think that this ductator - does not know the weapons he has? He would take him very little time to comply. He is giving the UN the complete run around

Unless he doesn't have these weapons, in which case how is he supposed to produce them? I admit that he probably had them once, however everything that the inspectors are lookin for is based on info they received years ago. Whos to sayt what happened to these weapons? But regardless, i agree he's not co-operating completely.

I think that since the US presentail election - Geoge W has increased his mandate by getting over both houses of congress.

And that should change my opinion that Bush shouldn't be in charge of one of the most powerful nations in the world?

lot of Anti US posters - Very few criticising Iraq. Even for they way he is treating the UN - which is unacceptable

Unacceptable? how? On one hand you're saying that Iraq should obey the UN, and on the other hand you're ignoring that America should do the same. Israq is being victimised by America at the moment. The only organisation that should be examining Iraq's case is the UN, not the US pressurising the world to follow their own individual stance.

If Saddam does not cop on and co-operate fully - they will be war.

There will be war regardless. I think Saddam realises this. Come on, tell me, do YOU think america will invade regardless of what the UN decide?

This is not down to the UN but Saddam.

to a certain extent yes, i agree. However, as always, if the UN/US initiate this war, the blame lies with them, since Iraq has NOT made an aggressive more than a decade. It is their choice to use war as a method.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Cork
I think that the fact Saddam has not co-operated with the UN for 13 years is being conveniently forgot.

Or the fact that the US+UK have been bombing the fuk out of Iraq in those 13 years and the heavy sanctions imposed on the country have created lovely things like 1 in 5 children dying before the age of 5 from malnutrition.

Look Iraq/Saddam are two different things! While pretty much everyone will agree that they won't be shedding a tear over the death/removal of Saddam, the majority of the anti-war people don't think it's worth while creating 1.5 million refugees or put 500,000 innocent people at the risk of dying. (UNICEF secret report figures, in the news today).

The only people who I have seen praising Saddam as part of the anti-war are in Iraq.

I think, if Geoge W waits for a second resolution - France, Germany and the EU will be 100% behind him.

He wants a second resolution so he can wage his war. Nothing else.

Comparing Geoge W to Hitler is an insult to the US.

GWB is an insult to the US.

dathi1

all these comparisons between Hitler WW2 and Iraq are Junk.
The fact remains that the Bush admin hasn't got the credentials morally or otherwise to wage war against this particular dictator. An un-elected administration waging war on another un-elected administration in the name of Justice, Morality and America's interest. The French have it right...the world will be a more dangerous place if this war goes ahead. Call me selfish but I don't want to live in a new : Islamic V Christianity World War Crusade at the behest of Bush + co. Unlike the cold war .. a war with God on both sides will be catastrophic.

Bunny

Originally posted by Cork
I think that the fact Saddam has not co-operated with the UN for 13 years is being conveniently forgot.

Israel has defied the UN and UN resolutions more than any other country. Weapon inspectors would not even be allowed into Israel. Also the fact that the US has vetoed in the UN more than any other country. The US has also defied the UN twice as many times as Iraq has.

I think that Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people and invading Kuwait is also brushed aside.

Brushed aside? its the first thing that seems to come out. We're quick to accuse Saddam, but don't want to look at the fact that evidence is arising that a skirmish with Iran maybe have resulted in the deaths of those people, however I am not trying to hide the fact that Saddam has tested chemical and nerve agents on prisoners, etc. Also a large number of American and German companies had no qualms about supplying Saddam with chemical weapons and their precursors in the first place, they are as guilty as he is.

Americans got their blood revenge with Afghanistan, what ABC and CNN won't tell you is how the situation really is in Afghanistan, when are American troops gonna start shooting the kids that are throwing stones at them? Why does America already have detailed plans for the carve-up of Iraqi oil and almost no plans whatsoever as to how to deal with the country after they have bombed the hell out of it?. America is slamming France because of its supposedly hypocritical stance (ww2, oil contracts with iraq, Ivory Coast) but Americans don't seem to understand why the world is slamming them because of the same hypocritical 'shoot first and ask questions later' attitude of the Bush administration.

Uh uh, peace.

Cork

Israel has defied the UN and UN resolutions more than any other country. Weapon inspectors would not even be allowed into Israel. Also the fact that the US has vetoed in the UN more than any other country. The US has also defied the UN twice as many times as Iraq has.

The middle east peace process was an inspiration to our own. I think that Israel shpold co-operate with the UN. But - Why does Iraq continue to treat the UN with complete distain?

Why can't Iraq just actively co-operate?

If they did - the only thing that would be damaged would be their pride.

But - Saddam's time is running out. I know the US is not perfect but :

Americans don't seem to understand why the world is slamming them because of the same hypocritical 'shoot first and ask questions later' attitude of the Bush administration.

Saddam is only playing into Geogre Ws hands. Saddam needs to own up to the arms he has. This is preferable than UN inspectors trying to find such weapons.

A task like Gardai trying to find poteen stills.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bunny
We're quick to accuse Saddam, but don't want to look at the fact that evidence is arising that a skirmish with Iran maybe have resulted in the deaths of those people, however

In fairness, there are enough seperate events, that I dont think this is a fair comment. It is almost beyond doubt (if not completely beyond doubt) that Hussein has used WMDs on what are technically his own people.

And Saddam hasnt changed ... remember? This is why the pro-war faction will tell us that he has to be removed...not because he did these things once upon a time, but because he will do them again.

What they fail to mention is that there are millions of these Kurds amongst the impoverished that the Iraqi government supply life-saving food to every month.

How could this be??? We're told that Saddam hasnt changed, that he hates the Kurds, that he wants them gone from his own country, that he would gas them all given a chance, that the food-for-oil program is a joke being used to line his own pockets.......and here he is feeding them.

Clearly this man is sticking to his barbarous ways and making a mockery of the UN humanitarian concessions.

And lets look at the other main reason - Saddam is not allowed have WMDs because he will supply them to terrorists. OK - there's a threat to Israel from Iraq, but the US and UK want us mostly to believe that its fear of proliferation.

Of course, the US can be trusted not to proliferate WMDs. It didnt sell/give them to Saddam and numerous dictators over the past few decades in the name of whatever was convenient at the time. Thats not important....because their administration has changed. They wont do this any more, and we needent worry about the possibility of future administrations doing it becase hey....its a democracy - we'd never vote in such nefarious people (like we have done in the past).

Saddam, on the other hand hasnt changed (despite feeding the people he wants dead, and indeed feeding his own people at all), Therefore, he can be trusted to continue doing what he's always done....

which would be keep his weapons to himself.

Oops...no....thats not the pro-war argument. Saddam hasnt changed, and will continue to sell weapons to the terrorists that he hasnt sold to before.

Err....no...not quite got that one.....maybe someone can explain it to me?

Maybe they can explain it to Blair, because he's changed from stating that he knows as a fact that WMDs are being sold on the black market to terrorist groups, to admitting that his greatest fear is that one day this might happen, and it is in avoidance of that fear that Saddam must be disarmed.

Terribly consistent there with what you know Tony - great for adding weight to the proof everyone says exists.

Getting the picture Cork?

The reason that these excuses are "brushed aside" is because they are inconsistent, conveniently cherry-picked to support one side of the argument, and have been already answered to death.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
What they fail to mention is that there are millions of these Kurds amongst the impoverished that the Iraqi government supply life-saving food to every month.

How could this be??? We're told that Saddam hasnt changed, that he hates the Kurds, that he wants them gone from his own country, that he would gas them all given a chance, that the food-for-oil program is a joke being used to line his own pockets.......and here he is feeding them.

The food distribution in the Kurdish enclave in Northern Iraq is directly administered by the UN, AFAIK. Though I don't know how many if any Kurds are served by the O4F programme in the rest of Iraq.

therecklessone

Originally posted by shotamoose
The food distribution in the Kurdish enclave in Northern Iraq is directly administered by the UN, AFAIK. Though I don't know how many if any Kurds are served by the O4F programme in the rest of Iraq.

I don't think they're being included in the "provide them with defences against chemical weapons in case Saddam decides to repeat his past endeavours in the event of war" programme either...

I see both the Irish Times and this evening's Channel 4 news carry pieces highlighting the requests by the Kurds to both the US and the UN for gas masks and the like, in case Saddam decides on one final act of revenge on a people he has little love for. This at a time when NATO is tearing itself apart over providing defences against missile attacks by Saddam on Turkey!

Remind me how the coming conflict can be justified on the grounds of human rights abuses by Saddam's regime.

Sand

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

Nope Hitler never had a chance of conquering the world. He never even came close. Again youre missing my point.

Yes. But hitler was always considered to be Mad.

No he was considered quite reasonable before the war started - someone with whom deals could be made with. Like Saddam is now viewed by France and co - and the US before them?

No. The difference lies in the scale.

Like I said no difference in intention then?

The majority of their weapons were initially of a superior nature, than the Poles, the French, or the British.

No, the Germans main tank- i forget the designation but it was their main tank throughout the war even with the introduction of superiour tanks ( As a demonstration is was estimated if this tank was discontinued the Nazis would be building 15 tanks a month ) was inferiour to French and British tanks deployed in the Battle of France - to the point where German infantry had no effective counter to early allied armour, and their tanks werent able to "kill" enemy allied tanks. Legendary abilities have been attributed to German panzers ( and stukas ) due mostly to their revolutionary strategy and the incredible effectiveness of that strategy. The actual tools used werent awe inspiring at all.

Hitler managed to win elections to get him elected, through a democratic process.

The most the nazis ever got was a third of the vote in a time when radical politics such as the communists were popular as they like all whako cults promised to lead their followers to the promised land. Once he got that he then acted to declare himself effectively a dictator with little opposition- due mostly no doubt to A- his actual short term success in renewing Germany, and B- his army of street thugs/ SS who terrorised any "dissidents". Similarly Saddam is far from invincable- all it takes is one person to stand up and shoot him. But Saddam, who incidentially like his uncle was a big nazi fan in his early days, uses extreme brutality not only to kill those plotting against him but to discourage those *thining* of opposing him - if I came to you and said, Ive got a plan to overthrow Saddam, are you with me - can you honestly say you wouldnt think "Well, yeah, but if we fail which everyone before us has then not only am I dead, but so are my family, friends and anyone else remotely connected to me - In fact If I do not inform on you and you are caught I will be targeted and so will my family and friends".

If you call that total support then I dunno.

I'm sure they will while they're attacked by America, simply cause they're the infidels that wish their land.

the average Iraqi culture is noted as being quite secular so I dont think theyll go the Jihad route. The Kurds in the north are apparently welcoming the American invaders as liberators - so long as they bring any army with them but the Turkish army whom they rightfully view as oppressors:|

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

/me sighs

Theres just no arguing with such an incredibly stupid/brainwashed-by-slogans comment.

Id love to see you argue that the democratically elected President of the US is closer to Hitler than Saddam is for comedy purposes if nothing else. Go on, give me a laugh.

and that he was a threat to european peace.

So so long as the dictators arent in Europe its not our poblem. Im getting that triumph of evil and good men twitch again, dunno why.....

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand


No, the Germans main tank- i forget the designation but it was their main tank throughout the war even with the introduction of superiour tanks ( As a demonstration is was estimated if this tank was discontinued the Nazis would be building 15 tanks a month ) was inferiour to French and British tanks deployed in the Battle of France - to the point where German infantry had no effective counter to early allied armour, and their tanks werent able to "kill" enemy allied tanks. Legendary abilities have been attributed to German panzers ( and stukas ) due mostly to their revolutionary strategy and the incredible effectiveness of that strategy. The actual tools used werent awe inspiring at all.

By Battle of France, do you refer to the German invasion in 1940 Sand? If so, your mostly on the ball. German tactics were far superior to the Allies, who relied on the WW1 doctrine of fixed defences. The Wehrmacht was, at most, 20% mechanised, with the rest mostly horse-drawn or on foot. The Allies had MORE tanks in the theatre of battle than the Germans, but posted them in small numbers supporting infantry units, and thus were easily overwhelmed by the German tank divisions. The Lufwaffe had learned well the lessons of the Spanish Civil War, and the Allies air-forces were no match for superior German aircraft, airmen, and tactics.

However, come 1944 and the Allied invasion of France, and the technological situation had changed. The main battle tank used by the Allies, the Sherman, was a disaster waiting to happen. Poorly armed, and poorly armoured, Allied tankers would often find their rounds bouncing off the more-heavily armoured German tanks. It was when the Allies managed to break out from Normandy, allowing their tanks to make use of their one asset, speed, in addition to their perfecting of ground to air communications(making use of total air superiority to rain down fire on the German ground troops from above) that they began to make significant gains.

therecklessone

p.s read Stephen Ambrose's books D-Day and Citizen Soldiers...for an interesting, and not too long on the boring stuff, history of the conflict from D-Day to the end of the war.

Bunny

Originally posted by Sand
Nope Hitler never had a chance of conquering the world. He never even came close. Again youre missing my point.

This can be argued back and forth, but I doubt many historians hold the theory that "Hitler never had a chance of conquering the world". If Hitler had been more like Stalin and let his generals run the war, then I strongly believe the RAF would've been defeated, Russia crippled, etc. The facts speak for themselves. Hitler was a much bigger threat to the world THEN than Saddam is NOW. That is the point I am trying to make.

No, the Germans main tank- i forget the designation but it was their main tank throughout the war even with the introduction of superiour tanks ( As a demonstration is was estimated if this tank was discontinued the Nazis would be building 15 tanks a month ) was inferiour to French and British tanks deployed in the Battle of France - to the point where German infantry had no effective counter to early allied armour, and their tanks werent able to "kill" enemy allied tanks. Legendary abilities have been attributed to German panzers ( and stukas ) due mostly to their revolutionary strategy and the incredible effectiveness of that strategy. The actual tools used werent awe inspiring at all.

The German tanks were superior until the introduction of vast numbers of Russian T34's on the eastern front. On the western front (france) the Germans had an almost 4:1 kill ratio over Mostly inferior Allied tanks, Allied airpower was the main factor in German tank destruction.

/me sighs

Theres just no arguing with such an incredibly stupid/brainwashed-by-slogans comment.

Id love to see you argue that the democratically elected President of the US is closer to Hitler than Saddam is for comedy purposes if nothing else. Go on, give me a laugh.

As a threat to world peace? Bush is considered by many as a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam is, at least the world can easily stop Saddam by force. America has dubbed many countries as the new 'axis of evil' (including Cuba) the way Bush has invaded Afghanistan and is now on the brink of doing with Iraq, what if washington decides to invade N Korea, then Syria, and so on? try and look at the bigger picture. Can we please stop with the Saddam/Hitler comparisons, they were both pretty mad, but thats where it stops.

lili

i heard ben laden is hidden in north korea cause it's the only place the americans wouldn't pick him up:D

Nope Hitler never had a chance of conquering the world. He never even came close. Again youre missing my point.

I disagree. If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, he would have had the divisions needed to take out the allies completely in africa, and been able to concentrate on taking Britain out. Remember it was after the invasion of Russia, that America joined the War. Previous to this there was a non-aggression pact with Russia, which Stalin was very happy.

No, the Germans main tank- i forget the designation but it was their main tank throughout the war even with the introduction of superiour tanks ( As a demonstration is was estimated if this tank was discontinued the Nazis would be building 15 tanks a month ) was inferiour to French and British tanks deployed in the Battle of France - to the point where German infantry had no effective counter to early allied armour, and their tanks werent able to "kill" enemy allied tanks. Legendary abilities have been attributed to German panzers ( and stukas ) due mostly to their revolutionary strategy and the incredible effectiveness of that strategy. The actual tools used werent awe inspiring at all.

At the beginning of the war, the main reason why the allied tanks were heavier, was because they were still using tanks from WW1. France at that time, was considered to have one of the largest Tank armies in the world. They didn't succeed in defending simply because the Germans used al military arms in conjunction. So yes superior tactics. However, Germany was ahead in the technological race for weapons at this time. The Stuka, was the best dive bomber at its time, proven in battle. German tanks while lighter, were more manouvurable, and capable of firing more accurately. German Troops used a variety of weapons all of which were superior to the weapons the allies used. So the Germans, did have more superior technology.
Which Saddam, definetely doesn't.

The most the nazis ever got was a third of the vote in a time when radical politics such as the communists were popular as they like all whako cults promised to lead their followers to the promised land. Once he got that he then acted to declare himself effectively a dictator with little opposition- due mostly no doubt to A- his actual short term success in renewing Germany, and B- his army of street thugs/ SS who terrorised any "dissidents". Similarly Saddam is far from invincable- all it takes is one person to stand up and shoot him. But Saddam, who incidentially like his uncle was a big nazi fan in his early days, uses extreme brutality not only to kill those plotting against him but to discourage those *thining* of opposing him - if I came to you and said, Ive got a plan to overthrow Saddam, are you with me - can you honestly say you wouldnt think "Well, yeah, but if we fail which everyone before us has then not only am I dead, but so are my family, friends and anyone else remotely connected to me - In fact If I do not inform on you and you are caught I will be targeted and so will my family and friends

In the 1932 elections, the Nazi party received more votes than any other. The election results a total of around 13 million votes.

Regardless when Hitler becamer chancellor, it was more because of a scandel, than any real voting. However for Hitler to get to this stage, he needed the people behind him, which they did. The german people wanted someone to tell them what to do, and they found him. Are you going to tell me that the german people didn't want Hitler, or that the German Military didn't really mean to follow his orders for 6 years?

If you call that total support then I dunno

Nobody will ever have total support. However he got the support to put him in power, and to keep him there.

the average Iraqi culture is noted as being quite secular so I dont think theyll go the Jihad route.

Jihad is not the route i mean. Jihad is really the last straw. However i do believe that the average Iraqi will see Americans as being Invaders not Liberators.

quote:

---

/me sighs

Theres just no arguing with such an incredibly stupid/brainwashed-by-slogans comment.

Id love to see you argue that the democratically elected President of the US is closer to Hitler than Saddam is for comedy purposes if nothing else. Go on, give me a laugh.

---

Just as we see any comparison between Saddam & Hitler as being just as pathetic. But please laugh all you like, when you consider that the comparisons we drew were along the same lies you made your own comparison. But i agree these comparisons are meaningless.

So so long as the dictators arent in Europe its not our poblem. Im getting that triumph of evil and good men twitch again, dunno why.....

No. But at the time that Hitler, was around, Europe was the center for the most powerful nations in the world. Before WW2, it was France, Britain, and Russia that influenced the world. America to a much lesser degree. A dictator in Europe made more of an impact on global policies back then, nowadays Europe isn't as powerful.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by The Saint
I think that the world can live without the racism and nonsence the Sun ****s out. I find that the world can go on without the knowledge that Jordan went up another cup size. It is not a newspaper.

Yes, the problem with tabloid newspapers are that their readers have the misguided impression that they report the "news!"

Sand

I disagree. If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, he would have had the divisions needed to take out the allies completely in africa,

Exactly- Hitler couldnt even come close to conquering the world - All he could do was conquer a few important strategical areas and hope to make peace with the rest of the world, thereby solidifying his Third Reich. But Hitler was always going to invade the USSR, it was the Germans promised land and the slavs upon it were filthy tresspassers. For an example of how impossible the idea of Hitler conquering the world was consider the *incredible* scale of a ground invasion of Russia. The Germans massed a massive 3 pronged army to attack but they were incapable of keeping a continuous front line - defeated russian units were "lost" in the German rear and later emerged to wreak havoc with the German supply lines, Russian units were able to waltz through the Germans nominal frontline because there was no one there to hold them - When the Russians went on to the offensive the Germans were lost, despite some criticial battlefield successes they simply hadnt got enough men to defend their lines.

The USSR was one country. You expect him to even come close to conquering the world? At best Hitler was a regional threat limited to Europe with a ill fated escapade to rescue the bumbling Italians in North Africa.

German Troops used a variety of weapons all of which were superior to the weapons the allies used. So the Germans, did have more superior technology.

Ive lost the link to a historical article i read regarding German armour - it described an engagement early in the Battle of France where the German armour had advanced so fat it had outstripped it supporting infantry, which British armour ambushed. The German infantry had no counter , and when the Germans armour was quickly called to come back and help out they found their guns to be pretty damn ineffective against the British. The situation was only rescued by German air support. So I can forgven for believing that the Germans real strenth was not their tanks, but their employment of them, especally in the combination with their airpower - and their ability to think out of the box , using hanggliders to assault fortresses etc etc. Disbelieve or dont.

In the 1932 elections, the Nazi party received more votes than any other. The election results a total of around 13 million votes.

Heh, thats even less proportionally based on population. And as I said before the Nazis were a product of their time, their cousins the hard line communists were pretty damn popular also.

Regardless when Hitler becamer chancellor, it was more because of a scandel, than any real voting. However for Hitler to get to this stage, he needed the people behind him, which they did.

Or the people who disagreed with him too scared to say anything. A certain Mr Reinhard Heydrich helped out in that regard with his friends from the secret police - just the more civillised versions of the strong arms the nazis had relied on to control the streets. Like Saddam, Hitler understood that if you make an example of a few the rest are too smart/scared to bring attention on themselves.

However i do believe that the average Iraqi will see Americans as being Invaders not Liberators.

The Kurds view the Americans as liberators, Iraqi property and stock market is booming in ( we assume ) anticipation of the post saddam era. Yeah, tis all doom and gloom.

Just as we see any comparison between Saddam & Hitler as being just as pathetic.

Because Saddam isnt an oppressive warlord held in power through sheer terror, relying on his army to subjugate his population whether he views them as part of the master race/proper iraqis or not? Okay.

Before WW2, it was France, Britain, and Russia that influenced the world.

Britian and France were Imperial powers in the actual sense of the term. They were far from the only democracy in the world and of them, only France was in serious danger of German conquest - though the situation was far from lost even when war broke out ( The German High Command considered its victory over France to be near impossible, so much so that no one had seriously considered plans for Operation Sea Lion until after the battle of france - leading to a rather lucky pause for Britain). The USSR was wholly insular and not a world power, too busy murdering a goodly proportion of their popu----uh , I mean spreading the joys of communist brotherhood comrade.

Yes, the problem with tabloid newspapers are that their readers have the misguided impression that they report the "news!"

Agreed. Theyre as bad as those "indy" news media organisations trying to get the truth out there, man.

Exactly- Hitler couldnt even come close to conquering the world - All he could do was conquer a few important strategical areas and hope to make peace with the rest of the world, thereby solidifying his Third Reich

WW2 was a mistake on Hitlers part. He didn't realise that Chamberlain would defend Poland. He never had any intention of conquering the world. At least not at the start of the war. In regards to the inability to conquer the world, thats not strictly true. America entered the war when Germany declared war on it. There is no guarantee that America wouldn't have stayed out of the war should Britain have fallen. Also Hitler had a non-aggression pact with russia, so he had that flank secured, if he never attacked them. he could have conquered the world, in my opinion.

The USSR was one country. You expect him to even come close to conquering the world? At best Hitler was a regional threat limited to Europe with a ill fated escapade to rescue the bumbling Italians in North Africa.

Check your history. The failure of the invasion of russia was due to a number of reasons.

1) the killing & plundering of civilians who were openly supporting the german invasion at the start. thus creating a partisan force in the rear.
2) lack of mechanised forces. Most of the german forces relied on horses to draw heavy machinery.
3) Lack of winter weapons/clothing. uniforms were of the normal variety. Also weapons were not developed to operate in the cold of winter.
4) being misguided, about the timeline for the war. The winter set in too soon for them.
5) changing of startegic objectives. Hitler weakened many of the forces by changing their objectives, so the original attacks moved with less troops and were stopped.

Or the people who disagreed with him too scared to say anything. A certain Mr Reinhard Heydrich helped out in that regard with his friends from the secret police - just the more civillised versions of the strong arms the nazis had relied on to control the streets. Like Saddam, Hitler understood that if you make an example of a few the rest are too smart/scared to bring attention on themselves.

True. However, consider that a large portion of the german population served in the armed forces during the war. That suggests that alot of people supported Hitlers ideals. Conscription was used, however, if you look at the histories of WW2, the Waffen-SS, was totally made up of Volunteers, as was the majority of German Wehrmacht Divisions at the start of the war. The Majority of the German People supported the war, while they were winning. It was only when Hitler made blunders and went crazy, that the Generals/ & the people turned against him. Even when Russia took Berlin, there were alot of people who supported Hitler, and believed that he'd produce some superweapon to save them.

The Kurds view the Americans as liberators, Iraqi property and stock market is booming in ( we assume ) anticipation of the post saddam era. Yeah, tis all doom and gloom.

Do u really believe that the average iraqi, will support america once they're hit by artillery, cruise missiles, and aerial bombardment? when they loose whats remaining of their electricity, and water? they'll compare with saddam, and realise there are worse things than being scared.

Because Saddam isnt an oppressive warlord held in power through sheer terror, relying on his army to subjugate his population whether he views them as part of the master race/proper iraqis or not? Okay.

Then why wasn't he compared to other warlords, instead of Hitler? Since Hitler is generally associated, with the killing of entire populations. Saddam, has not done this. You might as well compare Hitler to Bugs Bunny, since Bugs has millions of people who appreciate its cartoons. If comparisons are to be made, then maybe use Fidel Castro/Francisco Franco. Since if you're going to say that terror, and use of the military for staying power, then they're more comparable.

Britian and France were Imperial powers in the actual sense of the term. They were far from the only democracy in the world and of them, only France was in serious danger of German conquest - though the situation was far from lost even when war broke out ( The German High Command considered its victory over France to be near impossible, so much so that no one had seriously considered plans for Operation Sea Lion until after the battle of france - leading to a rather lucky pause for Britain). The USSR was wholly insular and not a world power, too busy murdering a goodly proportion of their popu----uh , I mean spreading the joys of communist brotherhood comrade.

Britain stood in real peril of being invaded. It was the invasion of russia that stopped that. Briatins airforce was on the verge of being destroyed until, hitler changed the operational plans. Once air power was gone, they intended to invade. Germany had the troops, and the landing craft available in normandy for the invasion prior to the attack on Russia.


The USSR, while being an insular power, was like the US. Their power was respected.

lili

cool klaz, glad to see there is some guys here who are aware about history and geopolitic:)