Limited Edition, Special Debate Time-Compare/Contrast WWII to Iraq

Isn't that the lesson I was talking about? Hit him before it's too late!

 

How precisely that applies, I don't know. It's like a 20 year old picking a fight with a 4 year old; unfair, no matter how you spin it (I don't care if the kid did steal your wowwypop either).

Face it J-Rod, this was one in a line of countries that couldn't possibly be a threat to the US but where otherwise beaten silly.

E_S

 

So was Nazi Germany...at one point. Given time, Saddam would have successfully bribed away the sanctions and then would've openly began his weapons reconstruction.

And even if you don't believe that it still doesn't explain why in the Hell it is ever a good idea to ignore our part of the cease-fire agreement with Saddam.

 

Please, you were pretending Nazi Germany wasn't a threat until Dec 1941, 3 years after the war started. You know, the Freedom Loving people of the British Empire already recognised the threat and stood up to it, unlike to French-like cowards in the US who hate freedom.

(I love throwing your own silly arguments back at you - God bless satire)

I feel vindicated that my comment earlier - people who insist on this equating Nazi Germany with Iraq don't know enough about why they should feel this way, only that FOX/The President/Some other right wing dittohead commentator told them to - is being shown to be true by the postload!

I tell you what; so long as you insist on not thinking, and lazily making inaccurate historical comparisons about Iraq and Germany, I'm going to make comparisons between Hitler and Dubya. I see no good reason why you can cretinously bastardise history to suit your agenda, and I can't.

Your agenda = by saying Iraq and Nazi Germany are the same, you give a false moral weight to the Iraq war by riding on Nazi Germany's coattails. You ignore the facts in both cases, because you don't know them and can't be bothered researching them, and figure that you can justify an increasingly hard to justify war by invoking the greatest evil of the modern age. In a sense, you're burying your head in the sand to avoid the unpleasant reality of Iraq; namely, the US made amistake (which contradicts the bible or something).

My agenda = by saying Nazi Germany = Bush's America, I illustrate to you by aping your posititon and changing the parties involved how dishonest and useless such tactics are. I show you that there's no merit in ramming an agenda onto history and international relations, and that such emotive appeals are basically incredibly stupid.

Let me kick off; who does this sound like:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or 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 to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

US Secretary for Defence Donald Rumsfeld or Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Hermann Goering?

See, I can be as foolish as you - but I know I'm doing it. You truly believe you should believe it.

E_S

 

Your agenda = by saying Iraq and Nazi Germany are the same, you give a false moral weight to the Iraq war by riding on Nazi Germany's coattails. You ignore the facts in both cases, because you don't know them and can't be bothered researching them, and figure that you can justify an increasingly hard to justify war by invoking the greatest evil of the modern age.

So, in summation, you believe that the cease-fire should have been ignored because...

(Sorry to cut through your crap. But history tells us what happens when a cease-fire agreement with a violent brutal dictator with a desire for conquest is ignored)

 

No. History doesn't tell us what happens when such a ceasefire agreement is ignored. Thanks for proving Ender's criticism right, and do some actual research please.


Iraq can hardly be compared to WW2. The only similarity was that a brutal dictator was involved in each case. Everything else about the two are completely different (except perhaps the emphasis on urban warfare and bombing of civilian areas). The principal difference is that the allies didn't start the war to specifically remove Hitler and his regime, they did so because Poland was invaded. Iraq II was clearly a case of stepping on a snake for fear it would become a dragon.

Yes you could probably make an argument that in the absence of sanctions (even though they did nothing to affect The Man) and intervention of some kind, Saddam's Iraq would have grown stronger... but how much and after how long? Such an argument could be applied to every state on the planet. Does having a nuclear weapon make a nation a threat?

I think there's a fair amount of similarity to post-War Korea, where American forces occupied a nation rife with encroaching civil war and had no idea how to stop it without putting more weapons into the hands of the favoured.

 

Iraq can hardly be compared to WW2. The only similarity was that a brutal dictator was involved in each case. Everything else about the two are completely different (except perhaps the emphasis on urban warfare and bombing of civilian areas). The principal difference is that the allies didn't start the war to specifically remove Hitler and his regime, they did so because Poland was invaded. Iraq II was clearly a case of stepping on a snake for fear it would become a dragon.

Bottom line, if the Allies would have moved on Hitler the first time he crossed the DMZ WWII would not have happened. Period.

 

OK, J-Rod, if you wish to be dense - ignorance being bliss, bliss being happiness, Happiness being something you have a right to - that's cool.

If we're going to play this idiotic charade about Iraq/Nazi Germany, then France = America. America sat out the threat of WWII for years, France sat out the "threat" of Iraq.

You frenchie, you!

E_S

 

If you knew anything about Iraq you would know that it was in no state to begin rebuilding it's WMD programmes from the embryonic level that they had been reduced to. By 1990 Iraq had spent well over a decade working on WMD's at a time when the country was relatively prosperous, had a functioning infrastructure and had considerable scientific and intelctual resources. In that time they were unable to build a nuclear weapon, they were unable to effectively weaponise biological agents and while they did have a considerable stock of chemical weapons they were somewhat crude. The idea that Iraq of 2003 with it's economy ravaged, it's infrastructure smashed and it's intelectual resources vastly degraded could have put a serious WMD programme is palpably absurd. To believe such a thing demonstrates total ignorance of the state of Iraq and of the kind of resources needed for such programmes. By the same token there was simply no way that Iraq could have re built it's conventional forces to anything like their 1990 condition.

 

One has to look at which avenue the comparisons take.

For example, I think radical islam as a means to control mass populations and demand total loyalty is similar to Nazi Germany, but Saddam is no Hitler.

Iraq is not Germany nor central to the war on terror. It might be now, since the US's removal of Iraq has allowed terrorism to flourish there, but comparisons to Vietnam may be more accurate than to WWII. Saddam did not cater to terrorists, as they were a challenge to his authority on the ground; his existent or non-existent state sponsorship of terrorism in my book classifies as an act of war and not as terrorism.

In terms of idealogy though, comparisons can be accurately made. Both terrorism and fascism provide the means for dictators to flourish, demand absolute obedience, and tolerate no dissent. In that sense, islamic fundamentalism is a threat to the US and the West, but Iraq IMHO is not the embodiment of that threat.

Peace,

V-03

 

What has radical Islam got to do with Saddam, Jay?

E_S

 

The idea that Iraq of 2003 with it's economy ravaged, it's infrastructure smashed and it's intelectual resources vastly degraded could have put a serious WMD programme is palpably absurd. To believe such a thing demonstrates total ignorance of the state of Iraq and of the kind of resources needed for such programmes. By the same token there was simply no way that Iraq could have re built it's conventional forces to anything like their 1990 condition.

Firstly, Iraq would be able to quickly rebuild it's conventional army once the sanctions had been bribed away. They have plenty of oil and money along with many countries (who sit on the UN Security council) willing to sell them anything they wish to buy.

Secondly, Saddam had all the resourses needed to rebuild his WMD programs. Hell, if you believe the Iraqi commanders who've defected he had already restarted those programs.

But he had all the materials needed and, most importantly, the guys who knew how to make WMD's.

Thirdly, partly due to the way we allowed Saddam to toy with the cease-fire agreement, the rest of the mid-east was emboldened.

I know my history. I've done the research. I've been to the lectures. We did absolutely the right thing by enforcing the cease-fire agreement. We did absolutely the right thing by going into Iraq. Because we said we would!!

 

And what would be the significance of this? Are you forgetting what happened in the Gulf War. Even in the early 90s, the full force of the conventional Iraqi Army did not pose a serious threat to the United States. For the most, their rounds couldn't even penetrate our tank armor. In order to pose a real threat, they would've had to do arm themselves significantly better than they ever had previously.

Given, he could've been something of a regional threat if he was allowed to rebuild his military. But given that we had, in fact, repulsed his previous attempts to invade other countries, I would doubt he would attempt doing so again. That, in my mind, is the much more important point of credibility in our foreign policy than this "because we said we would" line you keep trying to sell.

Because the Iraqi defectors have been such a reliable source of information thus far. Oh wait.

To do what, exactly? What events do you have in mind in the Middle East do you think would not have occured had they not been "emboldened?" And if your referring to Bin Laden or some such, I would respond by asking you whether terrorist attacks have stopped now that we've "shown ourselves willing to respond?"

 

And if your referring to Bin Laden or some such, I would respond by asking you whether terrorist attacks have stopped now that we've "shown ourselves willing to respond?"

Terror attacks have increased. When an army attacks (very loosely referring to terrorism as an army here) those attacks increase when the target begins to fight back. And they'll continue at that pace until they are convinced that we have the heart to continue fighting. And that may take awhile as the Dems keep screaming for an end to that fight and we also have at least 13 years of weakness to overcome.

I firmly believe that 9/11 would not have happened had Osama believed we'd actually go into Afghanistan.

The USS Cole would not have been bombed if they thought we'd use the military instead of the courts.

The Marine barracks would not have been bombed for that same reason.

If we responded to this war in '93, when it was declaired on us, Madrid and London may not have been attacked.

Weakness invites agression. Look it up.

Given, he could've been something of a regional threat if he was allowed to rebuild his military. But given that we had, in fact, repulsed his previous attempts to invade other countries, I would doubt he would attempt doing so again.

You know damned well he could go into Iran and nothing would be done to stop him. Hell, the last time he tried it we aided him. Perhaps Syria. Or Jordon. The point is this: Hitler was only a regional threat...at one point.

So, I see you don't agree with my,"because we said we would" point. Why? Should we make empty threats? Will that make us more or less safe? (See: 9/11)(See WWII)

EDIT: Also I'd like to point out that if Saddam actually though we were serious about enforcing the cease-fire, he would've submitted to it.

 

If I can go back to a previous point:

To believe such a thing demonstrates total ignorance of the state of Iraq and of the kind of resources needed for such programmes. By the same token there was simply no way that Iraq could have re built it's conventional forces to anything like their 1990 condition.

I don't think this is completely fair. While we do have to look at each situation as it exists, there are examples that demonstrate this in the world right now.

Take North Korea, for example. North Korea is probably one of the worst countries in the world for income dispersion. Remove Africa, and it might be the worst. I'll look up the exact figure, but from what I remember, the North Korean government takes 60% of every dollar and puts it into the military. (and various military-related government projects)

In the 90's, despite being subject to aid restrictions, (which was called the 'agreed upon framework') North Korea diverted its humanitarian aid into building nuclear weapons. That meant that vast amounts of North Korean civilians were starving to death/becoming malnourished while the North Korean government acquired WMD's.

When that was discovered and the program was suspended, it was too late, North Korea had working nukes.

Back then, there were those in government who were saying there would be no way North Korea would voluntarily sactacfice its own population to acquire WMD's, and those people were horribly and tragically wrong.

On a lesser scale, Zimbabwe is another example of this, and there are many others.

Now, I'm not saying this was conclusively happening in Iraq, but it's not really that much of a stretch to think that it could, especially since so much deception was occuring. Sadddam was spending millions of dollars on palaces while his people starved, so I don't think anyone would be shocked if he also diverted money for weapons.

That's another reason why the integrity of the inspections should have been upheld from the beginning.

 

Of course. Conventional forces built up over a decade or more (during a prosperous time) that were utterly crushed in 1990 could have been quickly rebuilt by a country with severe economic problems and a ravaged infrastructure

Pure drivel. Saddam did not have the reources needed to rebuild his WMD programmes. UNSCUM did not just destroy weapons but the infrastructure behind the programmes as well and roughly 99% of the material imvolved was accounted for. Saddam would have effectively been starting drom scratch in a country that was far worse off than when he first put such programmes in place.

 

Pure drivel. Saddam did not have the reources needed to rebuild his WMD programmes. UNSCUM did not just destroy weapons but the infrastructure behind the programmes as well and roughly 99% of the material imvolved was accounted for.

Again I state; He had everything he needed. Everything. Just because much of it was accounted for by being labeled "insecticide factory" doesn't mean it isn't there. Let's not forget the centrifuges that were buried in a rose garden. Let's not forget that Wilson never really discredited the yellow cake sale from Africa.

Let's also not forget the huge stockpiles of contraband conventional weapons he had. This was built up during a time of sanctions and with a "ravaged infrastructure."

He had the brain trust. The oil would give him the resources. Hell, are you saying Hitler just appeared overnight? 'Cause he didn't. We made a promise to him that we didn't keep and that allowed him to take Europe.

I'm sorry if you think we should've have continued to break another promise we made to Saddam.

But hey, a promise is a promise.

 

But you're still combining two concepts that are only minimally similiar, and using the same rationale for both.

You're correct in that Iraq wouldn't have been able to build all of its conventional forces up to pre-Desert Storm levels. One can't simply sit back and lump everything together, it's not fair.

If not the entire spectrum, is it possible that Iraq could have focused on one aspect of its military? Could Iraq have diverted a paltry 50 million from its oil program and secrectly replinished it's ballistic missile forces? For a relatively small amount, Iraq could have easily purchased 240mm rockets from North Korea, or similiar, but longer ranged Iranian rockets.

There was actually evidence of this when the surplus ROLAND missiles were foung buried in Iraq. Those missiles weren't old and outdated, but brand new manufacture, purchased soemwhere on the black market. Again, even if those missiles were found in limited quantities, since Iraq was supposed to be subject to sanctions, it wasn't supposed to possess any.

Since this is the WWII-Iraq comparison thread, and I haven't offered a comparison, Hitler did this with German U-Boats. To get around the restrictions, Hitler didn't increase the entire German armed forces out in the open for everyone to see, he selectively targeted what would get around the law.

It's not unthinkable in the least to consider that Iraq would engage in the same behavior.

 

So then, let me ask you this. Are you claiming that, simply by continuing to fight for a few more years, we will be able to come to a point where Bin Laden et al will give up and walk away? That we will come to a place where there are no longer any terror attacks at all? Further, allow me to question how your theory works. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq because it's convenient for them. They don't have to be their, werne't before, and none of their senior leadership is at risk. Whereas, it has been a boon for them in terms of recruitment and giving its membership combat training. In cases like Zarqawi's it's made careers for people that were recgonized as low-life's even within their own circles. How, then, are they being seriously hurt? Even putting aside the significant moral problems with this whole strategy, I don't really see how it's tactically that wise either. How is a response to an unrelated party any better than no response at all?

And what happened, that last time? Oh yeah, even with the help of the world's greatest superpower, he made absolutely no headway against the Revolutionary Guard. Clearly, he'd sweep through the country unopposed some ten years later, with his army in complete disrepair, and without all the help he was afforded before.

As to the other places you listed, he could attempt an invasion, yes. But what point would there be? What advantage would their be to invading the other Baath-controlled state?

Yes, if you engage in a lot of saber-rattling and make empty threats, you will be seen as more vulenerable and less credible. But there are lots of other ways to end up in htis position. Like, for instance, failing to bring any reasonable standard of security to a country you invaded several years ago, and whom, militarily and economically speaking, was never anything close to a match for you. That counts as pretty "weak" looking in my book, J. So even if you supported the war at its outset, how can you support it now?

 

And what happened, that last time? Oh yeah, even with the help of the world's greatest superpower, he made absolutely no headway against the Revolutionary Guard.

I wouldn't say Iraq had anyone's direct "help." Both the US and the UK sold equipment to both sides, and provided technical support, but it's not like either was actively aiding one side or the other. (And actually, as it's listed, the Western nation that supplied the greatest amount of chemical weapon agents to Iraq was the Netherlands)

The strategy of selling equipment to both Iran and Iraq was to ensure that neither would emerge from the conflict more powerful than the other.

However, had both sides not agreed to the UNSC ceasefire in 1988, Iraq would have definately continued on as the victor.

 

I'd like to begin by saying that I agree with the assertion that the Iraq War (or rather, IMO, the greater War on Terror) is not 100% comparable to WWII events. Having said that, it is undeniable by anyone that takes history seriously that there can be important comparisons made.

Some of the more significant comparisons that I think can be made are as follows:
-Before the outbreak of WWII, Nazi Germany was economically ruined due to the Versailles Treaty. Using the justifiable frustration that the German people felt concerning this treaty, Hitler began to rearm Germany illegally. Call it whatever you will, but the Allies did little more than say "shame on you for breaking the terms of the Versailles Treaty Germany!" and they just let it happen. Despite the elements of the Versailles Treaty that were undeniably unreasonable, the fact that Germany was rearming was a clearly illegal act. The Allies should have, IMO, taken action right then to halt the rearmament and disarm Germany before they had a chance to attack anyone. I also personally believe that the VT should have been thrown out the window and a new treaty put in it's place that would have made Germany's economic buildup more possible without military rearmament but it didn't happen. Bummer.

So how does this compare to Iraq or the War on Terror? Put simply, if the Allies would have taken action before Hitler began his military campaign against Austria and Poland, more specifically, then we would have been spared the deaths of MILLIONS of soldiers and civilians over the following few years, to say nothing of the Holocaust. A lesson to be learned here is that diplomacy doesn't always work, especially against a brutal dictator that cares nothing for the people he/she governs or about other people and cultures of the world. Such tyrants need to be dealt with before they cause acts of horror. I think it's safe to say that Saddam committed many atrocious acts and was fully capable of doing worse. There is evidence that he was seeking WMDs, even if we didn't necessarily find significant WMDs in his country after the war began. Who's to say that he wouldn't have made or bought them later? And I doubt anyone would deny that he wasn't insane enough to use them or at the very least give one to a terrorist.

-I believe that waging total war (a 20th century term to describe a war in which all resources are used to destroy an enemy's ability to engage in war) is the only way that we will truly win the War on Terror against radical islamists. IMO you can't negotiate with people that want to either see your culture die out completely or dominate you militarily and impose their own radical ideology upon you. No matter how much you place blame upon the Western world for the radical islamist's anger towards western society, the fact of the matter remains that they have been and continue to be willing to kill large amounts of civilians and soldiers in an attempt to impose their will upon others. This is similar to the Nazi and Imperial Japanese radical ideology during WWII. Can you imagine the world that we would be living in if the Allies of WWII had simply said "let's have a nice talk" or "you better be good or I'll not trade my goods with you any more!" in response to Pearl Harbor or the attack on Poland? At what point do you say "enough is enough"? IMO there were enough sanctions/resolutions against Iraq that were broken over the last decade to MORE than justify a military response. Saddam, in short, was asking for it as much as Hitler or Hirohito were.

I personally think that the lack of "total war" against an enemy is what partially caused the defeat against the North Vietnamese and it is also what is causing our current problems in Iraq and the greater War on Terror. We've become soft now days (thank you modern liberalism) and it's not doing anything to help us fight our enemies. I, unfortunately, don't see our wishy washy society really getting the will to wage total war against the terrorists until they do something really horrible like setting off a nuke in one

 

I don't recall, but could be wrong, reading anything that the U.S. was making deals with Germany or Japan though.

 

I don't recall, but could be wrong, reading anything that the U.S. was making deals with Germany or Japan though.





There were alot of prominent American private interests that openly supported Hitler in the 1930's and were sympathizers throughout the war. They shared Hitlers vision of what would be the endgame of his master plan - control of, or at least tremendous influence on, a vast industrial nation that already had many Germans working in it - the U.S.. Thats why I at least partly disagree with Enders perspective on the United States involvement and significance in the War. It may have taken Pearl Harbor to get the ideological isolationistic types still wary of their European parent countries on board but there were a great many in America that recognized the danger of Nazizm

 

Mr44, fair enough. But would you dispute my general point to J-Rod that given the way that war played out, it doesn't seem like something Saddam would've been eager to try again in the future?

 

i never said that there weren't some in the u.s. that supported the Nazis, i was referring more to the gov't itself... though in checked, i'd been mistaken in how closely tied the French gov't is to the national oil company there, which was started by the gov't, but seems to be private now, but I'd thought it was under greater gov't control than that. that is my mistake there.

though I would still contend there is a differnce between simply not being a part of military action (U.S. in WWII) and criticising others for said action (France re: Iraq)