If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
A brave friend makes a case...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/editorial/1033041329286140.xml
Interesting perspective. Blair is not universally detested.
Some might even think that he is doing the right thing, even if it is the unpopular thing.
Perhaps he read that little tidbit suggesting that if one does not study history, he is foredoomed to repeat it???
Almost exactly 64 years ago, on Sept. 29, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed an agreement in Munich with Hitler, assuring, or so Chamberlain told the British people, "peace for our time."
He told them what they wanted to hear. Blair, to his credit, seems intent on never repeating the error of underestimating a dictator. He's determined to tell the truth, however unwelcome.
We may not want to hear it either, but we'd better start listening.
Interesting perspective. Blair is not universally detested.
Some might even think that he is doing the right thing, even if it is the unpopular thing.
Perhaps he read that little tidbit suggesting that if one does not study history, he is foredoomed to repeat it???
0
Comments
Another thing to ponder.WWI caused the great depression,WWII sorted the employment issues pretty much on a logistical scale.
With the Stock markets taking a dive, whats in store for us now??Another war= another depression?
Although I can't remember exactly why or how it owrked, but wars generally relieve depressions.
When are the hawks at the White House going to understand that scary stories might work with their electorate, but not anywhere outside the US?
Why though??? They were/are both dictators. Both have a desire for total power, both were blind with power and misguided.
Only this time we have the ability to stop Saddam before it goes too far.
Saddam, mad as a hatter as he is, has no grand visions other than self-preservation; contrary to Bush & Blair's doomsday predictions he's not a threat to world peace; and more importantly, his piss-poor armed forces could not defeat The Vatican Swiss Guard if they tried.
For the record, that wasn't me that posted that.
1. Hitler only wished to dominate Europe, not the world...and I'm glad to know that you feel that Josef Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot and their like were saner than Hitler. Saddam only want to dominate the Middle East...all of it. Self-preservation is only high as a means to an end, just as it was for Hitler (Eagle's Nest mean anything to you?).
2. Don't underestimate the Iraqis. They would mop the floor with the Vatican Swiss Guard. It is one thing to be a good soldier, it is another to have hell and brimstone brought to bear on you and your mates from distances you cannot see and with weapons you cannot match in those circumstances. It is even more devestating to have it happen at night, or in a sandstorm....and that is what US and UK armor forces did to Saddam's elite. But they aren't piss-poor armed forces...far from it. They are far more capable than those of most of their neighbors.
Btw, in 1940, the German Army was no match for the British, Belgium and French Armies by any measure. They won anyway, but it was not by being the "greatest fighting force", it was by discipline and leadership within that Army. Saddam's Army have that same blood, don't underestimate them.
As for who is the maddest, we could talk forever about who merits leading the 'mad dictator' league (not to be confused with the evil dictator league
Remember that "Professionals study logistics, amatuers study tactics" quote. It applies here. The Germans were masters of tactics, strategic thinking, decisive use of force...but they failed to adequately consider the logistical situation they put themselves in. Not just Hitler was guilty of that. Germany could not have won that war. Just wasn't possible. And my comment about 1940 wasn't misplaced. Do a bit of research. The German Army was still using horses to supply units in 1945. Second to none? They were second to many....at least the Armies of the USSR, UK and USA.
Well, I can't argue with that. Now speak to me again about Saddam. Suggest you keep ^ in mind while you do so....
He was no threat you see.
At least, not until it was too late to stop him..
Particularly if it is all they have to defend themselves with, and the type of weapon which makes attacking so much easier...
You don't need tanks, planes, artillery to deliver this sort of weapon. Just a terrorist with a suitcase and a deathwish.
Not that there's any of them around either, huh?
Yet what Blair and Bush consistently fail to tell us is that there are probably about 4 or 5 people in every university in the world who would be able to build a 'dirty' bomb or even a low yield nuclear device, if provided with the required material. So Saddam wouldn't be the only one only 11-12 months away from a bomb if he could get hold of the radioactive materials needed; hundreds of thousands of other individuals scattered throughout the world, from religious fanatics to nutcases to disgruntled students to freelance terrorists could also have a device ready in no time. All it takes is trip to the Ukraine and a suitcase stuffed with dollars.
So when do we start closing down unis and arresting professors to eliminate the immediate threat the US and its allies face?
"wealthy, free-trading, and prosperous Germany of the 1930s"? What fantasy are you reading? Germany was in desperate straits. Their economy was a total disaster with inflation so bad that wheelbarrow loads of Marks were needed to purchase a loaf of bread.
Not that it really makes much of a difference to the issue at hand mind you.