Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:34:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
673 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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,
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 French people wanted peace.
> 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.
However in the modern day with long range missles and nukes being the goal,
that imbalance in our favor is irrelevant after they get them.
> 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:
No I would say it relates to France making the exact same mistake again.
>
> 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?
Yeah no kidding. That is why I said ALL dictatorships and oppressive
governments, not just the one we "don't like."
I have said it before, I'll say it again my only objection is that, by example
of Afganistan, the US will not actually spend the neccessary reasources to
rebuild the country. That means all we would be doing is pushing off the
threat till the next dictator comes along. Either way Saddam according to his
own writings believes he is destined to rule all of "Arabia" and take over the
"Western World." So long as Saddam is in power, war will happen. The only
thing we can do is make sure it happens on our terms. Why in the heck would we
wait till after he has the ability to nuke half the world?
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) They did not "occupy" the Rhineland - it was already part of Germany. (...) Would AH have violated the treaty if he thought he'd be repelled? Can SH get the same level of public support AH got? Did you read the text I quoted? See: ==+== (...) (21 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) 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! (...) Show me how scary they are then! Scare me into this war! Yesterday I read about this “myth”: The (...) (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
|
|
|
|
