How many of you guys think that Saddam should have stayed in power

[TMGSIX]

I am done with this subject as well, there is absolutely no reason to argue this topic, no ones views will change. The world does not hate us, our economy is operating at 99% capacity, gas prices are cheaper then they have ever been,a mass murderer has been removed from power, and our country is safer from terrorist threats thanks to our government.

[HAZ-Matt]

Although I expected this to be a trolling thread in which the fact that Saddam was a "bad man" would be used as vindication for the Iraq debacle, the poll was worded such that it is essentially a "for the war" versus "against the war" rehash.

Putting all bs aside for the time being, why isn't possible to acknowledge the fact that we went to war under false pretenses? Intellectual insecurity?

I do not believe United States forces should be used for 'nation building.' A certain Texas governor that ran for President in 2000 agreed with me. But if you believe that it is our duty to fight despotism around the world, why have we not done anything about the many other nations that live under tyranny?

How can certain people state that we are enforcing a UN resolution by disregarding the will of the UN? And if it is our duty to enforce UN resolutions unilaterally, why have we not invaded Israel or other states that have not complied?

[3.4 slow to go]

there goes that whole "unilateralism" bs again :rolleyes:

For the answers to the above questions, why not run for public office & find out? but then that would be off topic

[camaronat]

1) No, Saddam should not have stayed in power. I was suprised that there was 7 people who thought he should have stayed in power, but then again...no, I am not suprised.

2) About all the unilateral stuff, I think it is bs. If we went into every country that caused the UN problems and went into every that suffered from tyranny and oppression, then ALL of Europe and most of our country would have a hissy-fit. They would say we were being a bully, and condem us for trying to help people.

HAZ-Matt: I agree with you about the military not being used for "nation building". However, the only reason why we still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is becasue we have learned from past mistakes and are trying to keep those countries from collapsing on themselves and causing more problems. If we pulled out right now, it is pretty much garranteed that both countries would be under the thumb a tyrannical Islamic radical dictatorship within a week.

3)Skapimp: about what you said about Hitler....WOW!!!! [img]graemlins/omg.gif[/img]

Here is my take on that.
The only thing that he did good was to get people to believe him. His rise to power was not democratic. Have you ever heard of the Night of the Broken Glass? Sure he was elected by the Nazi party, but the Nazi's took power through physical intimidation. Most people in Germany were scared $***less of the Nazi's.
If I am not mistaken, it is very close to the way that Saddam came to power. Also, his blitzkrieg tactics may have been revolutionary, but he used them totally wrong. His tactics stretched his army too thin, and strained his economy to the breaking point. At then end of WW2 Germany was bankrupt and out of people. His biggest mistake was attacking Russia, but I won't get into that.
(Sorry about this last one, it is kinda off topic)

[HAZ-Matt]

Originally posted by 3.4 slow to go:
there goes that whole "unilateralism" bs again :rolleyes:

As opposed to Coalition of the Willing

Originally posted by camaronat:
2) About all the unilateral stuff, I think it is bs. If we went into every country that caused the UN problems and went into every that suffered from tyranny and oppression, then ALL of Europe and most of our country would have a hissy-fit. They would say we were being a bully, and condem us for trying to help people.

"Well, no sh*t." - Gunnery Sgt. Hartman

Originally posted by 3.4 slow to go:
For the answers to the above questions, why not run for public office & find out? but then that would be off topic

You don't learn anything from being elected.

Originally posted by camaronat:
HAZ-Matt: I agree with you about the military not being used for "nation building".

Good.

However,

Wait a minute... I thought you agreed.

the only reason why we still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is becasue we have learned from past mistakes and are trying to keep those countries from collapsing on themselves and causing more problems.

Again, refer to the Gunny's comment. This is largely irrelevant to the matter of whether we should have invaded the countries in the first place. By the way, Afghanistan has nothing to do with Iraq, and lumping the two countries together does nothing to improve you position on Iraq.

If we pulled out right now, it is pretty much garranteed that both countries would be under the thumb a tyrannical Islamic radical dictatorship within a week.

Maybe. I do not think anybody has thought that we should pick up and leave Afghanistan after doing a half assed job over there. But again, how did Afghanistan get in here, other than as a fals analogy?

3)Skapimp: about what you said about Hitler....WOW!!!! [img]graemlins/omg.gif[/img]

Here is my take on that.
The only thing that he did good was to get people to believe him. His rise to power was not democratic. Have you ever heard of the Night of the Broken Glass? Sure he was elected by the Nazi party, but the Nazi's took power through physical intimidation. Most people in Germany were scared $***less of the Nazi's.

I don't think so. Most people were suffering from the Depression and since Hitler and the party was able to offer them a scapegoat and put them to work, they were more than happy to go along with them initially.

If I am not mistaken, it is very close to the way that Saddam came to power.

While I will allow you the comparison between two as a statement that they both came to power through coup d'etat, it is important to note that Hitler's supporters were Germans and therefore the coup was a domestic matter, whereas Saddam had the backing of other sovereign nations, most notably the United States.

Also, his blitzkrieg tactics may have been revolutionary, but he used them totally wrong. His tactics stretched his army too thin, and strained his economy to the breaking point. At then end of WW2 Germany was bankrupt and out of people. His biggest mistake was attacking Russia, but I won't get into that.

The tactics of "blitzkrieg" had nothing to do with Germany's faluire to win the war. Infantry and armor that can sweep across large areas rapidly, along with tactical air support (after air supperiority) is the only way to win a modern war, and was in fact the way the allies were able to drive across Europe. Unfortunately the wrong lessons were learned from WWII and it was assumed that strategic air power actually had some value. It is also very important to note that Hitler did not come up with the idea, as it was a mere extension of practices employed by such greats as Alexander and Napoleon. All that aside, Guderian is generally credited with creating the modern blitzkrieg tactics.

Since this thread is all about comparing people to Hitler or the Nazi's, I'll leave you with this thought:

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
-Hermann Goering