Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:25:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
630 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
>
> > Are you crazy? Anything which does not support the war is "irrelevant"
> > [see France, Nato, the UN, public opinion, etc]. Don't make the mistake
> > of thinking that the "Hawks" are interested in rational thought!
> >
> > Scott A
>
> Read some history books, specifically the public opinion about how to
> make peace with violent and hostile nations in the mid 1930s.
Mike,
You've proved my point. You thought Pedro's point was so "irrelevant" that you
have chosen to talk about 1930's Europe instead!
> "Preserve the
> peace at all costs." Seriously the parallels between now and then are just
> plain scary.
Show me how scary they are then! Scare me into this war!
Yesterday I read about this “myth”:
The opponents of war on Iraq are not the appeasers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,894422,00.html
==+==
The parallel between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany is transparently
ridiculous. In the late 1930s, Hitler's Germany was the world's second largest
industrial economy and commanded its most powerful military machine. It openly
espoused an ideology of territorial expansion, had annexed the Rhineland,
Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession and posed a direct threat to its
neighbours. It would go on to enslave most of Europe and carry out an
industrial genocide unparallelled in human history.
Iraq is, by contrast, a broken-backed developing country, with a single
commodity economy and a devastated infrastructure, which doesn't even control
all its own territory and has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let
alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Whatever residual chemical or
biological weapons Iraq may retain, they are clearly no deterrent, its armed
forces have been massively weakened and face the most powerful military force
in history - Iraq's military spending is estimated to be about one per cent of
the US's $380bn budget. The attempt to equate the Iraqis' horrific gas attacks
on Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war with the Nazi holocaust is
particularly grotesque - a better analogy would be the British gassing of Iraqi
Kurds in the 20s or the US use of chemical weapons in Vietnam.
==+==
Perhaps you can search your "history books" books to back your argument?
> Do you know why France did not enforce the demilitrized zone in
> Germany? Because it would have cost the politicians the election. Well sure
> enough a few years later it cost the people a lot more.
If this is supposed to relate to current events in Turkey, I doubt you have
read this little text regarding our freedom loving allies:
Turkey denies British troops role on border
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,894393,00.html
>
> Untill such time as all dictorships and oppressive governments are removed from
> the Earth; peace is and will be a dangerous idealistic delusion.
None of that explains your nation's support for Pakistan; a nuclear
dictatorship, which exports terror and exchanges weapons technology with N
Korea. Need I go on and talk about the Orlando Boche again? Nicaragua? Camp
X-Ray?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Had france actually stopped them after occuping the Rhineland (which it could have done very eaisly at that point) the whole thing would never have happened. The German military at that point was weaker than Saddam's is right now. Instead the (...) (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) .... and now it appears not even the USA is 100% welcome: Turkey ups stakes on US troops (URL) Turkish president has said his country will allow US soldiers to be deployed on its territory only if the United Nations passes a second resolution (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Read some history books, specifically the public opinion about how to make peace with violent and hostile nations in the mid 1930s. "Preserve the peace at all costs." Seriously the parallels between now and then are just plain scary. Do you (...) (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
