COMMENTS:
No it would have been a good thing to do, but no one was in a position to remove Hiltler from power, I feel the only reason war was not declared on Hitler until 1939 is because no one had enough equipment to take him out. As far as Saddam goes his ability to wage mass warfare was irraticated after the 1st gulf war.
by ABC on Thu Oct 07, 04 2:11pm
[+]
I think it is a good thing to take out leaders that may cause the world problems but only as long as the majority of nations agree.
by ABC on Thu Oct 07, 04 2:19pm
[+]
Good points, ABC.
I don't like Saddam (to put it mildly), and wish he'd never been put in a position of power in the first place. If Bush, Jr. had actually told the world that he wanted to take him out because he was a bad guy, instead of cynically connecting him to the 9/11 attacks, at least people would have been getting the straight story.
To answer your question, yes -- in hindsight, it's a shame that Hitler didn't grow up to be a great painter instead of a frustrated, bitter psychopath. However, no one had a crystal ball back then, any more than they do now. 'Intent' does not equal action. 'Intent' is not a valid reason for starting a war.
Have you ever wished someone were dead, even fantasized about killing them? If so, should you be put in prison for having those thoughts? We'd have a prison overpopulation problem if those were valid grounds for incarceration. Similarly, I think the world would be in a state of chaos (i.e., constant warfare) if every nation launched pre-emptive attacks on countries whose leaders had evil 'intent'.
by mojo on Thu Oct 07, 04 2:35pm
[+]
Agreed. Intent and ability make it something worth considering.
Plus, 'desire' or wishing is more accurate than 'intent.'
Saddam may have had the desire, but he did not have the capability; nor was he likely to acquire it.
'No it would have been a good thing to do, but no one was in a position to remove Hiltler from power, I feel the only reason war was not declared on Hitler until 1939 is because no one had enough equipment to take him out.'
Had they acted in 1934 either britain or france would have had more than enough power to remove hitler. It wouldn't have taken more than a few hundred thousand troops because at the time the german army was pathetic and hitler had only a tenuous hold on the government.
'I think it is a good thing to take out leaders that may cause the world problems but only as long as the majority of nations agree.'
In which case hitler should have been left in power as a majority of nations thought he could be contained with a diplomatic approach, and refused any sort of direct confrontation, even though we know now that that would have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars.
Cath: why exactly do you believe saddam never had the capability to develop wmds? They aren't that complicated, they're fairly inexpensive, and they were only held in check by US backed sanctions (which we see now were easily and repeatedly broken both by saddam and our 'allies', and would likely have been overturned in the near future). I'm sure some people assumed the treaty of versaille would hold hitler in check forever, but the problem is that maniacal dictators don't tend to keep their word if they don't feel like it.
There in no comparison to what Hitler did and what Saddam did. Saddam's war machine was dead and Hitlers wasn't. Saddam couldn't get his hands on WMD weapon making material but Hitler could get his hands on anything. The reason that Saddam couldn't and Hitler could is because Saddam had an embargo on him for the last 10 years and building a tank would have been impossible. Saddam is probably the first person to be tried for a "he wanted to do it" type of crime. Herzog, building a WMD isn't as easy as you say. If he put up any nuclear reactors, the radars would detect it, if he put up any missile silos, again the satellite radars would have detected it. I agree with Cathexis, you can't attack someone because they hate your country or if you think they are going to attack you.
Should we have removed Bush when we first started to suspect he was about to start an illegal war and commit war crimes? Yes, in retrospect, I think we should.
excellent point keithsheen
by ABC on Thu Oct 07, 04 4:36pm
[+]
Re: what keithsheen said, as Arsenio Hall once said, it's a thing that makes you go, "Hmmmm..."
Prescott Bush's ol buddy??
"There in no comparison to what Hitler did and what Saddam did."
Hmmmm, Hitler killed 6,000,000 people. Saddam killed what has been reported between 350,000-1,000,000 people. Both sets of people were put in mass graves.
You're right, there is obviousley no comparison there.
|
