[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Senator, you're no Hitler (no Who)



Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:34:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Zenswhen <bushchoked@yahoo.com>

It's not the truth, though. Saddam is not in Hitler's league.
Neither was Hitler...until he was.

Having lost relatives in Hitler's rampage, I personally resent the comparison. You don't know what the eff you're talking about.
I maintain all respect and sympathy for you and your relatives concerning this loss, and in no way do I mean to discount it. However, just because none of my relatives (that I know of) died in the German rampage doesn't mean my own mind is impaired. (And FWIW, the Japanese rampage did its level best to work my father to death in a prison camp.) Hussein now is not as dangerous as Hitler was at his zenith, but he IS as dangerous now as Hitler was on his way up. Given the unavoidable choice of one or the other, I'd rather fight Hitler in 1935 than 1941.

>You're forgetting his attack on Iran in 1988: "Of the many conflicts in progress around the world in early 1988, the Iran-Iraq War was by far the bloodiest and the costliest." --

Yeah...I'm trying my best to forget...that was the one Reagan supported, right? With weapons, arms, chemicals and "biological samples" given to Iraq? Yes? And nothing was said when Saddam used them on Iran? Uh huh. I'm glad you're so proud of that moment in our history.
<cough> I didn't say a word one way or the other about being proud of it, I mentioned it as a direct factual refutation of your claim that Iraq had only attacked Kuwait.

Be as skeptical as you like, but it's a matter of public record that our ambassador to Iraq, when told of the upcoming invasion, said (and I quote): "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts." What do you call THAT, but a "go ahead?" See for yourself:

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm
You really should read your own cite.  From that very page:

From a translation of Iraq's transcript of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade.

[In April 1991, Glaspie] said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale," and denounced the Iraqi transcript as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though it contained "a great deal" that was accurate.

In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction."
Once again, TARIK AZIZ GAVE GLASPIE SOME VINDICATION. HE SAID SHE HAD NOT GIVEN IRAQ A GREEN LIGHT.

Yeah, Alan, there's a lot of bad people out there who kill innocents. That doesn't make them Hitler. Are we going after all of them? No? I wonder why.
I'm guessing here that you would NOT be happier if the U.S. declared war on every tyrant simultaneously, so I really don't know what your point is. We obviously can't do everything at once. Whatever we *do or don't do* with Hussein will be an example to tyrants. I have no doubt that clearing him out will be a deterrent to other terrorist attacks on the U.S., and NOT taking action against him will be an encouragement to same.

There's that "link" to 9/11 that doesn't exist cropping up again! The ONLY terrorist attack the CIA can verify is Saddam giving funds to Palestiniens whose relatives have been suicide bombers.
I don't want to hang the whole argument on whether Hussein did or did not support Al Queda, but a high-ranking member of Al Queda did live in Baghdad prior to 9/11. I think getting rid of Hussein is necessary to demonstrate to any terrorists that not even God can save them if the U.S. has reason to believe they're plotting an attack.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Apparently you don't see the irony of citing this quote in the question of whether to oust a murderous thug or not, but I do. That aside, there's a huge difference between initiating violence and retaliating. (Ghandi's over-quoted line fails to recognize that violence exists in a context and may or may not be appropriate in any particular case.) May we deduce that if you walked in on someone raping your daughter you would try to talk him out the door rather than join the ranks of the incompetent?

Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true."
--Howard Stern, 5/25/00