Iraqi crisis explained...

[Mercutio]

Hey. Think what you want. I'm just tired of every, single thing in the world being Iraq's fault. Iraq is evil. Fine. So is North Korea. So are Libya, Columbia and many of the former Soviet republics (some of which are dictatorships of "new europe" that are being ever-so-cheerfully accepted into NATO). So is Israel. And so are we.

Why aren't we doing anything about any of the latter?

Bush's State of the Union address essentially stated that we would pursue force on the basis of probable threat, which sounds to me like the US is willing to strike first against all comers. That sounds like a declaration that we're ready to extend military hegemony over the whole world. Military hegemony = empire building. Ask the Romans. They were great at that stuff.

 

[its.fubar]

It is interesting to note that the vast majority were (ARE) against the coming War until The American propaganda machine said that the majority of Americans were solidly behind the present president of the united states.At this time the majority became a silent.

 

[The Giver]

Mercutio,

Perhaps the Giver should consider that, since the vast majority of Europeans and a large percentage (I don't know about majority, though) of Americans are AGAINST THE WAR, they might have a valid point.

A vast majority of Europeans don't believe in bathing more than once a month either but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop taking a shower daily.

 

[Mercutio]

I'll bet even our resident Norwegian would dispute that one.

Can't you at least pretend to argue?

 

[The Giver]

I'll bet even our resident Norwegian would dispute that one.

Can't you at least pretend to argue?

Do you have some pent up frustion you would like to dump on me? Well OK if we must argue lets at least narrow the issue down.

About what? Whether we should let Europe decide what's bests for the U.S.? Or if somehow their opposition has any relevance as to whether or not we should go to war with Iraq?

 

[its.fubar]

I'll bet even our resident Norwegian would dispute that one.

Can't you at least pretend to argue?

Do you have some pent up frustion you would like to dump on me? Well OK if we must argue lets at least narrow the issue down.

About what? Whether we should let Europe decide what's bests for the U.S.? Or if somehow their opposition has any relevance as to whether or not we should go to war with Iraq?

That is the most ridiculous assumption I heard in a longtime, are you suggesting that the USA should decide for the rest of the world.

All put it simpler we don't want your guns or your paranoia here!

 

[The Giver]

I'll bet even our resident Norwegian would dispute that one.

Can't you at least pretend to argue?

Do you have some pent up frustion you would like to dump on me? Well OK if we must argue lets at least narrow the issue down.

About what? Whether we should let Europe decide what's bests for the U.S.? Or if somehow their opposition has any relevance as to whether or not we should go to war with Iraq?

That is the most ridiculous assumption I heard in a longtime, are you suggesting that the USA should decide for the rest of the world.

All put it simpler we don't want your guns or your paranoia here!

1) What assumption did I make?

2) Decide what for the rest of world?

3) Guns where - are you in Iraq? What paranoia?

If you want a response to any questions you will have to state your question and your position clearly. Thus far you have failed miserably at doing either.

 

[its.fubar]

I'll bet even our resident Norwegian would dispute that one.

Can't you at least pretend to argue?

Do you have some pent up frustion you would like to dump on me? Well OK if we must argue lets at least narrow the issue down.

About what? Whether we should let Europe decide what's bests for the U.S.? Or if somehow their opposition has any relevance as to whether or not we should go to war with Iraq?

That is the most ridiculous assumption I heard in a longtime, are you suggesting that the USA should decide for the rest of the world.

All put it simpler we don't want your guns or your paranoia here!

1) What assumption did I make?

2) Decide what for the rest of world?

3) Guns where - are you in Iraq? What paranoia?

If you want a response to any questions you will have to state your question and your position clearly. Thus far you have failed miserably at doing either.

1)I thought that was obvious when you stated that Europe was somehow suggesting and deciding American policy ?

2)Is it not a fact that America wishes to export their own peculiar form of democracy and incorporate the rest of the world to the individual states of the USA ?

3)Are you suggesting there is not a military presence in Europe today ?

I hope this meets your approval on the way I have set out my response and questions!

 

[The Giver]

It's fubar,

Much better!

)I thought that was obvious when you stated that Europe was somehow suggesting and deciding American policy ?

2)Is it not a fact that America wishes to export their own peculiar form of democracy and incorporate the rest of the world to the individual states of the USA ?

3)Are you suggesting there is not a military presence in Europe today ?

1) I wasn't suggesting that Europe was attempting to decide American Policy. Mercutio introduced European public opinion into the conversation and I was questioning him as to why he did so.

2) No that is it not a fact. If you disagree please provide some credible evidence to support your contentions. Talk about paranoia!

3) Oh that's what you meant. I'll be glad to see them come home. Personally I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars wasted on defending the formerly great nations of western Europe. It's time they carried their own weight.

 

[Swede]

أنت الذي تنتّن أمريكيّ يمكن أن يلعق خصاي المجعّد !

 

[The Giver]

أنت الذي تنتّن أمريكيّ يمكن أن يلعق خصاي المجعّد !

I'm not sure if it is safe to assume that because your user-name is Swede that you are Swedish. However if you are from Sweden and the above is reference to my earlier comment regarding European bathing habits, then please know that I assumed everyone would clearly understand that I was not talking about the Scandinavian nations. After all, everyone knows they make excellent automobiles, have the most beautiful women in Europe, and by far practice the finest bathing and personal grooming habits of any of the nations in Europe. I thought this was apparent and went without saying.

 

[its.fubar]

It's fubar,

Much better!

)I thought that was obvious when you stated that Europe was somehow suggesting and deciding American policy ?

2)Is it not a fact that America wishes to export their own peculiar form of democracy and incorporate the rest of the world to the individual states of the USA ?

3)Are you suggesting there is not a military presence in Europe today ?

1) I wasn't suggesting that Europe was attempting to decide American Policy. Mercutio introduced European public opinion into the conversation and I was questioning him as to why he did so.

2) No that is it not a fact. If you disagree please provide some credible evidence to support your contentions. Talk about paranoia!

3) Oh that's what you meant. I'll be glad to see them come home. Personally I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars wasted on defending the formerly great nations of western Europe. It's time they carried their own weight.

1) Maybe the European does not want to be drawn into a situation where the long time consequences will be costly and harmful.

2) is it not a fact as far as commerce is concerned you do in the American way or hit the highway.

3) the only time Europe has been in danger since the second world war is when the USA and the former USSR was flexing its muscles .
and maybe if a country and its military realizes the only time they should use military intervention is when another country has attacked them first and certainly not using their military superior four financial gains.

 

[Jake the Dog]

تعرف اللّغة الهولنديّة أنّ أمريكيّين هم أقذر ناس للكلّ

 

[The Giver]

تعرف اللّغة الهولنديّة أنّ أمريكيّين هم أقذر ناس للكلّ

Please post in English. This game is losing it's entertainment value very quickly.

On the other hand if we are going to post in other languages, well that's a game we both play. Your choice.

 

[Mercutio]

It's never been an issue before, and Buck posts in German all the time.

 

[The Giver]

It's never been an issue before, and Buck posts in German all the time.

:roll:

 

[Mercutio]

Why should we care what Europeans think. They're only our big, important allies (Great Britain and Australia of course, which might as well give up and become the 51st through 59th states). Or at least they're supposed to be, until they do something that we disagree with.

'cause, you know, nobody gets to be an equal partner with the US.

... and the "the new Europe", represented by neo-fascists (I believe that designation is technically correct in this case) like Italy's Berlusconi (did I spell that right PW?), and shady cold war relics (Poland, and most of the rest of central and eastern Europe) are the countries that agree with the US. That's just the sort that I want on my side. Screw France, Germany, Belgium and all those freethinking bastions of political and economic stability. I'll take the guys who were working for the KGB 20 years ago!

Now that I'm done engaging in a small bit of semi-coherent hyperbole...

If there is such a strong outpouring of discontent by our important allies or their citizens (or even our own citizens), perhaps it's in the best interests of the state to consider alternatives to the source of discontent. There are several reasons for this. Vietnam Vets (in France AND the US) know what it's like when they lose their support on the home front. In those nations that have regular democratic elections, the disconnect between a government that supports war and a people that do not will likely lead to a more extreme national entity after an election. Germany became decidedly colder to the US after the election of Schroeder. Through diplomacy and intimidation, he's come much closer to agreement with most US policy. Now, what happens if the response to this, on the part of the German electorate decides next to send an even more extreme (ie, one less favorable to US or NATO) politician to power? An lefty isolationist (Schroeder but moreso) or a national socialist (not to invoke Godwin's Law)? The international, political ramifications of European disapproval could lead to real-world changes in the power structures among nations that might in many ways not be favorable to our country.

Does that mean we should kow-tow to France? No. But we need to treat France, Germany, Belgium etc as the partners they are, not as subordinate states.

Europe is a cauldron of dissent. It is a land of borders and the limits those borders impose - something I don't know if the average US citizen really understands. Europeans have a wider range of mainstream political thought than we in the US do - it's possible to a communist or a facist (we get our facists appointed by mein of our supreme court. Couldn't resist that one) that to be elected to government in many nations. Europeans have a wider range of media than we do, and Europeans are largely better educated than we are.

Rather than just saying "screw Europe", I think we need to look carefully at the thoughts and actions of these educated, Western peoples outside the US. Those in NATO are our close allies, and disregarding them and their opinion is about as smart as Caesar disregarding the words the soothsayer.

 

[flagreen]

Mercutio,

Rather than just saying "screw Europe", I think we need to look carefully at the thoughts and actions of these educated, Western peoples outside the US. Those in NATO are our close allies, and disregarding them and their opinion is about as smart as Caesar disregarding the words the soothsayer.

Of course we should listen to all of our allies. From all over the globe. But in the end we must do what we believe is right. Not what Europe or Asia or the Middle East thinks is right.

I would remind you that this is the same Europe that led the world into the two most devastating wars this planet has yet seen. The last of which ended less than 60 years ago after the deaths of 51 million people. I have met many European folks on line. Many of whom are very well educated. But as is the case of people everywhere many of them have not got enough sense to come in out of the rain. Nor have they demonstrated to me any significant change from the same flawed thinking that led them into the living hell of those wars. Frankly I wonder if they learned anything at all from the past. Try and get a German to discuss the holocaust with you sometime and you'll see what I mean very quickly.

As Colin Powell said recently, war should be the last option.. but it must be an option.

 

[its.fubar]

Mercutio,

Rather than just saying "screw Europe", I think we need to look carefully at the thoughts and actions of these educated, Western peoples outside the US. Those in NATO are our close allies, and disregarding them and their opinion is about as smart as Caesar disregarding the words the soothsayer.

Of course we should listen to all of our allies. From all over the globe. But in the end we must do what we believe is right. Not what Europe or Asia or the Middle East thinks is right.

I would remind you that this is the same Europe that led the world into the two most devastating wars this planet has yet seen. The last of which ended less than 60 years ago after the deaths of 51 million people. I have met many European folks on line. Many of whom are very well educated. But as is the case of people everywhere many of them have not got enough sense to come in out of the rain. Nor have they demonstrated to me any significant change from the same flawed thinking that led them into the living hell of those wars. Frankly I wonder if they learned anything at all from the past. Try and get a German to discuss the holocaust with you sometime and you'll see what I mean very quickly.

As Colin Powell said recently, war should be the last option.. but it must be an option.

Be so kind as to explain to me how many wars that Europe has bean involved with since ww2 and then compared it with how many these USA has and then you can maybe explain That flawed thinking suggestion again I wonder who needs to learn a lesson.

 

[The Giver]

Be so kind as to explain to me how many wars that Europe has bean involved with since ww2...

None thanks to the United States armed forces who were willing to risk their lives to protect your freedom. You do realize that the U.S. was willing to risk a nuclear holocaust to keep you free don't you? Doesn't that mean anything to you?

and then compared it with how many these USA has and then you can maybe explain That flawed thinking suggestion again I wonder who needs to learn a lesson.

It's not quantity - it's quality that counts. And there has been nothing even approaching the devastation of the either the first and second world wars despite the tremendous menace the U.S.S.R. at one time posed to the free world. That too is thanks to the United States armed forces and the American people.

Not that I expect you or any other European to give a crap.

 

[Dozer]

Perhaps it would be more clear to draw a parallel. Much of what occured prior to WWII was known and seen by the European community. I think the general attitude, at first, was that it won't affect us, it can't be that serious. I think what Flagreen is trying to say is that some of this attitude still prevails. Whether we think it or not, the actions of other countries come full circle to affect us all. We need to be proactive in dealing with the problems and yes, we all (the International community) need to communicate with each other and take each other's advice, information, and attitudes seriously. If there is a peaceful solution, we need to pour our efforts into finding it.

But we can't keep playing a cat and mouse game with nations that are potentially dangerous. It's like scolding a child. If you tell them "no" several times, but never take any corrective action, the child soon learns that he/she can get away with their behavior. We have trained nations like Iraq and North Korea to play games by not taking a hard line in the past. That is why it is so difficult now to get these nations to comply. I've said it before--I'm not a war monger. But to let the games go on and on is ridiculous.

I don't pretend to have all of the answers. None of us do. We have communicated strong opinions and will continue to do so on this board. But despite our opinions, despite what we individually believe is "right" or "wrong," action will be taken, and it looks more and more like a fighting conflict. If this does materialize, we need to be supportive of our country, our leadership, and our military. For opinion to become divided is exactly what our enemies want. I believe we have a responsibility to support our country and our way of life. If we choose not to support it, then perhaps we need to find another country. Just my opinion.

 

[The Giver]

Dozer,

I was conversing with a German gentleman the other day regarding WWII. Now he is an elderly fellow, 81 years old. He is also a retired Physics Professor from the University Salzburg. He was a Hauptmann in the Luftwaffe during the Third Reich.

He admits Hitler was terrible person who cast a spell on the nation. But he also firmly believes Germany was threatened by all of her neighbors and that the Second World war was one of self-defence. He also denies there was any holocaust - no matter what evidence you confront him with. In short, while he claims to despise Hitler, I have yet to find a single policy of Hitler's, or action which he Hitler took that this man disagrees with. And wow! does he ever hate Jews.

Now this is a brilliant man - P.H.D. in Physics. But he learned absolutely nothing from WWII. The scary thing is that he has taught thousands of Germany and Austria's young people. Thank God he wasn't teaching them History. But I do wonder who was and if they share his views on the Third Reich.

I grant you he is but one man. But right wing extremists are on the rise in Germany. And it's going to be interesting to see what happens in the next few years as the current struggle for political leadership unfolds in Europe.

 

[its.fubar]

Be so kind as to explain to me how many wars that Europe has bean involved with since ww2...

None thanks to the United States armed forces who were willing to risk their lives to protect your freedom. You do realize that the U.S. was willing to risk a nuclear holocaust to keep you free don't you? Doesn't that mean anything to you?

and then compared it with how many these USA has and then you can maybe explain That flawed thinking suggestion again I wonder who needs to learn a lesson.

It's not quantity - it's quality that counts. And there has been nothing even approaching the devastation of the either the first and second world wars despite the tremendous menace the U.S.S.R. at one time posed to the free world. That too is thanks to the United States armed forces and the American people.

Not that I expect you or any other European to give a crap.

if you wish to discuss the devastation of the second world war then I suggest you Americans stop giving the impression that it was the USA that saved Europe?the country that was more a savior was what you call the menace from U.S.S.R.it was that country that pay the heaviest price,is not to much of a exaggeration if I say they've lost more men and equipment that almost all other countries together.

I had no idea that's a war could be defined in the quality or quantity a war is a war regardless of how many people are killed I still believe that dubious honor goes to the USA unless you can contradict me ?

 

[Mercutio]

Where's Tannin when we need him?

I'm pretty sure most of the credit to winning the European part of World War II goes to the USSR also. St. Petersburg was the meat grinder that shat out Hitler's best.

You know what they say about land wars in Asia.

 

[The Giver]

Fubar my friend,

if you wish to discuss the devastation of the second world war then I suggest you Americans stop giving the impression that it was the USA that saved Europe?the country that was more a savior was what you call the menace from U.S.S.R.it was that country that pay the heaviest price,is not to much of a exaggeration if I say they've lost more men and equipment that almost all other countries together.

When did I give you the impression that I believe the U.S. saved Europe during the second world war? Where did I minimise the role the U.S.S.R. played in defeating Germany? I never did either. Everything I wrote about was post WWII and the invaluable service the U.S. performed for western Europe in the post war years. Just as I predicted you could not care less.

I had no idea that's a war could be defined in the quality or quantity a war is a war regardless of how many people are killed I still believe that dubious honor goes to the USA unless you can contradict me ?

Let me answer you buy posing the following question - Which is more tragic; A single War in which 51 million people are killed? Or a thousand wars where five million are killed?

And keep in mind that if there had been a third world war, the casualties would most likely dwarf the first two world wars combined.

 

[The Giver]

Where's Tannin when we need him?

I'm pretty sure most of the credit to winning the European part of World War II goes to the USSR also. St. Petersburg was the meat grinder that shat out Hitler's best.

You know what they say about land wars in Asia.

It must be catching - Please show me where I ever claimed that the U.S.S.R. did not deserve more credit for the defeat of Germany than the U.S.. I never claimed or implied any such a thing.

Please guys.. go back and read what I actually said rather than responding to what you think I said.

 

[The Giver]

Fubar (may I call you Fubar?),

You are a fairly young man I take it? Would you mind telling us what you were taught in school about Nazi Germany and in particular what if anything was said about the holocaust.

You might also elaborate a little bit on what your personal feelings and beliefs are about the holocaust.

 

[its.fubar]

Fubar my friend,

if you wish to discuss the devastation of the second world war then I suggest you Americans stop giving the impression that it was the USA that saved Europe?the country that was more a savior was what you call the menace from U.S.S.R.it was that country that pay the heaviest price,is not to much of a exaggeration if I say they've lost more men and equipment that almost all other countries together.

When did I give you the impression that I believe the U.S. saved Europe during the second world war? Where did I minimise the role the U.S.S.R. played in defeating Germany? I never did either. Everything I wrote about was post WWII and the invaluable service the U.S. performed for western Europe in the post war years. Just as I predicted you could not care less.

I had no idea that's a war could be defined in the quality or quantity a war is a war regardless of how many people are killed I still believe that dubious honor goes to the USA unless you can contradict me ?

Let me answer you buy posing the following question - Which is more tragic; A single War in which 51 million people are killed? Or a thousand wars where five million are killed?

And keep in mind that if there had been a third world war, the casualties would most likely dwarf the first two world wars combined.

It's not so much what you say is how you say it and the impression others can gather from it,this is unfortunately by no means attitude which is not uncommon in the USA .you also say that you saved western Europe from a nuclear holocaust well let me ask you this and where do you think those nuclear weapons would have been use and furthermore who produce the first nuclear device and used it and who was the country that supply your enemies with written details On how to produce such weapons.

so it's OK to have a small war and killed a few dozen people when ever it pleases you to do so, any war is barbaric and should not be tolerated in the twenty first century.

have you ever heard the old saying "Overpaid,Oversexed,and Over here" I wonder why these words come about, a suggestion learn a little humility.

 

[Mercutio]

The, the connotations of your previous post suggested (apparently to me and to Fubar) an overinflation of the efforts of the US in the liberation of Europe in 1945 rather than the combination of the Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe and the Truman Doctrine to halt the spread of Communism.

Clear writing is of course an important facet to debate.

 

[The Giver]

It's not so much what you say is how you say it and the impression others can gather from it,this is unfortunately by no means attitude which is not uncommon in the USA .you also say that you saved western Europe from a nuclear holocaust...

There you go again. I said no such thing! What I said was that the U.S. risked a nuclear holocaust in order to keep you free. Don't you see the difference?

The U.S. during those years refused to rule out a first strike policy (which put the citizens of this nation at considerable risk) to counterbalance the advantage in manpower and equipment the U.S.S.R. had in Europe. The implied threat of that was if the Soviets invaded western Europe, the U.S. Would launch a nuclear attack on the Soviets. They in turn would have retaliated against the U.S..

Now then am I allowed to assume all sorts of things you mean from the way you say it? Or is that just OK for you to do?

have you ever heard the old saying "Overpaid,Oversexed,and Over here" I wonder why these words come about, a suggestion learn a little humility.

Humility? I have said nothing but the truth here. Is it arrogant these days for one to tell the truth? If any virtue is required in the conservation it is gratitude on your part.

 

[The Giver]

The, the connotations of your previous post suggested (apparently to me and to Fubar) an overinflation of the efforts of the US in the liberation of Europe in 1945 rather than the combination of the Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe and the Truman Doctrine to halt the spread of Communism.

Clear writing is of course an important facet to debate.

WTF! I never even mentioned the U.S. role during the war at all! There is nothing to misconstrue or misinterpret. I never spoke of the liberation of Europe. But while were at it. The only part of Europe which was truly liberated was that which the British, French and Americans liberated. It's a stretch to say that the Soviets "liberated" anyone considering they refused to leave eastern Europe after the war.

How could I have written what I wrote any clearer? Teach me, I'm dying to learn.

The Marshall Plan? Courtesy of the tax payers of the United States - No strings attached.

The Truman Doctrine? Courtesy of the people of the United States - No strings attached.

Or am I being arrogant again by pointing out that these too where gifts from America to the people of Western Europe?

 

[The Giver]

Now it's me who needs Tannin to throw a "Bloody Hell" or two in on my behalf.

 

[its.fubar]

Fubar (may I call you Fubar?),

You are a fairly young man I take it? Would you mind telling us what you were taught in school about Nazi Germany and in particular what if anything was said about the holocaust.

You might also elaborate a little bit on what your personal feelings and beliefs are about the holocaust.

I do not mind talking about What we were taught in school about Nazi Germany,between 1942 and 1945 approximately 5 million ethnic minorities and 6 million Jews We're murdered in Europe I believe the Germans had a name for this "The Final Solution" correct me if I'm wrong,these diabolical crimes were committed in so called "Work camp's" Which were nothing more than a area where you can heard together many thousands of people were they used different ways to murdered these people one way that was used was gassing, another was experimental medical experiments,Then they cremated the bodies and it wasn't unusual to Cremated people when they were still a live,the names for these places were Bellson, Treblinka,Allswich I do not know if I'm giving justice to the spelling of these places I do apologize if they are wrong and of course there were many more, I also feel shaw the majority of schools in Europe had the same subjects on the Holocaust.
it is also impossible for any person tobe able to understand what these poor people were going through if they were not there,these hell camp`s were not solely a product of the war they were in place long before the second world war started and even the USA did not believe it was possibly and turned away many people trying to escape a certain death.

I hope this answer`s your question.

And just for the record what do you know about it and I'm not so young.

 

[its.fubar]

It's not so much what you say is how you say it and the impression others can gather from it,this is unfortunately by no means attitude which is not uncommon in the USA .you also say that you saved western Europe from a nuclear holocaust...

There you go again. I said no such thing! What I said was that the U.S. risked a nuclear holocaust in order to keep you free. Don't you see the difference?

The U.S. during those years refused to rule out a first strike policy (which put the citizens of this nation at considerable risk) to counterbalance the advantage in manpower and equipment the U.S.S.R. had in Europe. The implied threat of that was if the Soviets invaded western Europe, the U.S. Would launch a nuclear attack on the Soviets. They in turn would have retaliated against the U.S..

Now then am I allowed to assume all sorts of things you mean from the way you say it? Or is that just OK for you to do?

have you ever heard the old saying "Overpaid,Oversexed,and Over here" I wonder why these words come about, a suggestion learn a little humility.

Humility? I have said nothing but the truth here. Is it arrogant these days for one to tell the truth? If any virtue is required in the conservation it is gratitude on your part.

the difference being the nuclear holocaust would have been in Europe what freedom would that have brought to us or do you think Europe would have been a nuclear free Zone that is what I mean by having a little humility or do you still think you are telling the truth with arrogance!

 

[Tannin]

Perhaps it would be more clear to draw a parallel. Much of what occured prior to WWII was known and seen by the European community. I think the general attitude, at first, was that it won't affect us, it can't be that serious. I think what Flagreen is trying to say is that some of this attitude still prevails. Whether we think it or not, the actions of other countries come full circle to affect us all. We need to be proactive in dealing with the problems and yes, we all (the International community) need to communicate with each other and take each other's advice, information, and attitudes seriously. If there is a peaceful solution, we need to pour our efforts into finding it.

But we can't keep playing a cat and mouse game with nations that are provenly dangerous. It's like scolding a child. If you tell them "no" several times, but never take any corrective action, the child soon learns that he/she can get away with their behavior. We have trained the United States to behave this way by not taking a hard enough line in the past. That is why it is so difficult now to get the US to obey international law: we have let them get away with it so many times in so many places that they don't think the rules and laws of international cooperation apply to them, only other nations.

The appeasement argument cuts both ways, but the back of the knife is much sharper. Let's consider Iraq under Saddam, Germany under Hitler, and the USA under Bush, and see what similarities we can draw.

Germany was the most powerful military nation on earth.
The USA is the most powerful military nation on earth.
Iraq is not even close to being the most powerful.

(Sure, they have lots of uniforms and lots of obsolete tanks and rifles. But toe to toe, in an all-out fight to the finish, Iraq would struggle to beat a Canada or an Australia (because it's training and technology that wins wars, not how many foot soldiers you have), and would stand no chance against the likes of England, or America, or France, or Russia or Israel. The massive forces of the First Gulf War were not required to defeat Saddam, they were required to beat him without raising a sweat - by which I mean, beat Saddam without accepting heavy casualties.)

Germany had conquered and occupied surrounding areas, either peacefully or by naked force.
The United States has conquered surrounding nations, either peacefully or by naked force.
Iraq would like to conquer surrounding nations but has failed utterly in that ambition.

Germany was ruled by a man who genuinely wanted to do the right thing for his people and the world, but was horribly twisted.
The United States is ruled by a man who also claims to be genuine, and who may or may not be horribly twisted - opinions differ.
Iraq is ruled by a man who is clearly not genuine, but is twisted.

The German leader came to power by a free and fair election, some tricky fiddling with the constitution, and was enormously popular with his people.
The American leader came to power by a free and fair election and some deeply questionable fiddling with the system, and is enormously popular with his people.
The Iraqi leader came to power by an unfree and rigged election, some grossly unfair fiddling with the constitution, and is enormously unpopular with his people.

The German people were wealthy, well-educated and intelligent.
The American people are wealthy, well-educated and intelligent.
The Iraqi people are poor, un-educated and probably as intelligent as anyone else.

The German war frenzy came about following a massive patriotic propaganda campaign, and the effective banning of moderate outside voices.
The American war frenzy came about following a massive patriotic propaganda campaign, and the effective banning of moderate outside voices.
The Iraqis are not feeling war frenzy, despite a massive patriotic propaganda campaign, and the effective banning of moderate outside voices. They are just feeling scared.

 

[Tea]

Tannin, that'z not fair. You can't compare the United Ztatez and Hitler'z Germany.

(Why not?)

Becauze. .... Well, I can't think of a reazon why not, but it'z not fair.

(What are you saying? That it's not fair but you can't actually think of a reason why not?)

No! .... Well ... allright, yez. Anyway, I don't have to think of a reazon. My friend The Giver will be along in a minute, and he will be able to think of lotz of reazonz!

(Well, doubtless you are right, small furry one. But why are you suddenly so keen to take The Giver's side? Nothing to do with bananas, is it?)

No! Nothing to do it bananaz!

(Oh yes it is.)

No it'z not! I would never zell out my zoul for a handful of bananaz!

(Yes you did!)

No I didn't! Didn't! Didn't! Didn't!

(Did!)

Did not! It waz becauze he liked my poem.

(He what?!)

He said how good my poem waz.

(You ... sold out ... your ... good ... opinion ... because ... The Giver ... liked ... your ... stupid ... poem.)

No!

Yez.

No.

It wazn't like that! It waz juzt a purely intellectual meeting of mindz.

(Hmmmm....)

 

[Mercutio]

Who the hell says King Shrub is "Enormously Popular" here. "Popular", maybe, but some of us have some sense, dammit.

I suppose we could enact Godwin's Law at this point. I mentioned that before: Any time someone invokes "Hitler" or "Nazis" in online debate, rational argument is at an end.

Unfortunately, Tannin's statements above seem to have a lot of merit.

 

[Tea]

Anyway, it ztill wazn't fair.

(But it made a point.)

Yez. But the United Ztatez izn't alwayz bad.

(No. Sometimes they do good things. Sometimes they do bad things.)

So you are saying that the attack on Iraq iz one of the bad thingz?


(Not exactly. I'm not sure. I'm starting to think it's one of the bad things - like Chile and Vietnam and the Phillipines - but maybe it's one of the good things, like Korea or the First Gulf War. I can't make up my mind. Ask me in 30 years. We will ALL know by then.)

So you think they are just doing it for the money?

(No. Right now it's costing them a heap of money - and it's money they can't afford, because Mr Shrub has ztuffed the economy up.)

Oh nonzenze, Tannin. It waz going to ztuff up all by itzelf. He juzt happened to win the wrong election. You know that. Mr Shrub didn't ztuff the UZ economy up any more than Clinton made it work - I've heard you zay it a zillion timez - politicianz don't make economiez work or ztuff them up, they juzt walk around taking the credit or blaming the previouz adminiztration.

(Generally, yez. I mean "yes", dammit! - I wish you'd learn to talk right - But Shrub has gone to a great deal of trouble to stuff things up properly. First, for purely opportunistic party political reasons, he fanned the flames of national sorrow and isolationist fear up so far that the US has wasted untold billions of dollars on useless and unproductive so-called "security" measuures that (a) rob the economy of productive investment, (b) cause massive delays and cost over-runs in any worthwhile activity that requires air transport - businesses people depend on air transport you know, and time is money - and (c) wouldn't stop a terrorist with half a brain anyway. And he's caved in to the Jewish lobby and handed the genocide-mongers in Israel a moral cheque to go round bulldozing anything or anyone that stands in their way. And he's pumping incredible amounts of cash into buying weapons (as if he hasn't got enough already) instead of doing something useful with it ... )

Excuze me for butting in here, but what do you mean by "zomething uzeful"?

(Building factories. Improving the environment. Social welfare - best way to boost economic activity is increase social welfare, because the one thing you can be sure poor people will do with money is spend it - Doing something about getting ready for greenhouse measures - that's going to be a huge market before too long, domestic and export, and if the Shrub had enough brains to have a tax incentive for it, it could bring is some really serious export dollars. Or just tax a bit less and leave it in people's pockets. Let them spend it, or invest it in wealth production. But Shrub is too stupid. His economy has gone belly up in the middle of the pool and he is wasting more billions on a war - remember, his daddy Mr Tree didn't have to pay for the last Gulf War, the Saudis and the Japanese wrote some nice fat cheques and paid for that one. So here he is, faced with a failing domestic economy, and doing everything possible to make it worse!)

But why?

(He needs more of the V things, little one.)

The V thingz?

(Votes, silly.)

Votez? But why would that bring him votez? People would have to be ztupid to vote for a man that's az ztupid az that. Starting a war when you've already got problemz at home iz the mozt ztupid thing anyone could do!

(Really?)

Of courze! No-one could do zomething that dumb and get more popular!

(It happens all the time, small furry one. History is full of examples of it.)

Rubbizh! Go on, name me three examplez from hiztory. Bet you can't!

(Ha! General Galiteri of Argentina - the Falklands War man. They were dancing in the streets when his troops marched into Port Stanley)

That'z only one. And anyway, when they lozt the war, he ended up in jail. Name me three more. Bet you can't!

(Yes I can. Just a matter of deciding which three, really. Let's pick ... er ... Saddam Husein ... and ... er ... George W Bush, and ... er ... Adolf Hitler.)

 

[The Giver]

I'm going to put the Jackboot on the other foot in a little bit draw some comparisons between Saddam and Hitler as well as between pre-war Europe of the 1930's and Europe today. For whatever such things are worth.

But for now....

Its.fubar,

the difference being the nuclear holocaust would have been in Europe what freedom would that have brought to us or do you think Europe would have been a nuclear free Zone that is what I mean by having a little humility or do you still think you are telling the truth with arrogance!

The nuclear holocaust would have been global. Which most definitely includes the U.S.. And that is the point I was trying to make.

As for this arrogance stuff. Is it not possible for an American to recount the history of post war Europe with reasonable accuracy without being called arrogant? If I must distort the facts such to paint America as some sort of evil tyrant who was only interested in her expanding power and raping Europe to be seen as humble than I'll settle for arrogant.

 

[Dozer]

(Not exactly. I'm not sure. I'm starting to think it's one of the bad things - like Chile and Vietnam and the Phillipines - but maybe it's one of the good things, like Korea or the First Gulf War. I can't make up my mind. Ask me in 30 years. We will ALL know by then.)

As always, Tannin, you present intelligent argument intermingled with parts of comic relief, which I believe we all appreciate and probably keeps the healthy disagreement forum members have in check.

I think your quote above really spells out the mixed feelings that many people around the world are having with this crisis. And no one really knows for sure what the outcome is going to be. We can speculate all we want, but when it's all said and done, only time will tell.