Will anti-war protesters help Iraq + explain their position?

What ifs always result in maybes and I don’t knows. 20-20 hindsight is a benefit we have that the leaders of the past did have.

Ok, should we of attacked Germany in 1938? Sure, we might of won the war. On the other hand, we might of lost it. No one really knew what Germany’s military was like back in the day, and that probably includes most German commanders. I think it would be hard to imagine, given the information known at the time, how a war with Germany would turn out.

Comparing Hitler to Saddam is doomed to fail. Saddam is small scale, a mouse compared to Hitler. Hitler’s army and air force was the strongest and most technologically advanced in the world. Saddam has old Migs and t-55s (not sure on the T-55s). Hitler was attacking a WWI style army, and had the mobility and firepower to keep moving. Saddam doesn’t even have power over his own generals.

Regardless, I believe it is unfair to critique the leaders of the past based on the information we know. Doing the same thing, I would condemn the leaders of England, France, and Italy for the Treaty of Versailles, which allowed Hitler to rise to power.

@Yanny:

Saddam has old Migs and t-55s (not sure on the T-55s). Saddam doesn’t even have power over his own generals.

Not all of those MiGs are old. A few are quite advanced. Also, Saddam has many T-72s as well as the older (though upgraded) T-55s. While a “medium tank” at best by Western standards, the T-72 is capable of destroying an M1A2. “Even” a T-55 is a big threat to PCs & armored cars–which make up the vast majority of Coalitian armored vehicles. But point taken–with the exception of some of the planes, and (if rumor is true) a few infantry anti-tank weaps, all of Saddam’s technology is 70’s-era at best, they are few indeed in number to the Coalition’s arsenal, and Hussein has no way to build or purchase any more before the war ends. Plus he’s not in Europe.

Saddam seems so far to have pretty good control of his key generals. When the war starts to go badly, that might change…

Ozone27

What, you think MORE people would have died had Hitler been dealt with earlier?

I think the Cold War would of been a hell of a lot worse.

Sure, Saddam isn’t like what Hitler was in 1942, perhaps more like about 1935 or 1936. Do you want to wait until 1939 and let him get the first punch? This might not be related but I love the saying “The idea isn’t to die for your country, the idea is to make the enemy die for your country”.

Based on 1935 Information, is Hitler a threat? Is he building a weapon which could defeat either the mighty French or Russian armies? Is suicidal enough to think that he can beat the two strongest armies in the world at once?

Thats what people were saying in 1935. No one knew Hitler was and would get so advanced. But Saddam akin to Hitler in 1935? Maybe if you only consider the Mid-East, but Saddam’s armies probably aren’t even strong enough to defeat Iran.

My point is that you try to make the US look better than the French. A point i strongly disagree. Notice that this does not mean that i want to make the French look better than the US: both have an extensive list of “wrongdoing”.

The US is better than France. :wink:

I would challenge you that the US has done a lot more good in the world than France has.

@BigBlocky:

Regardless of T-55 and T-72, the allies have depleated uranium ammo, I think only those 2 countries use it.

This might not be related but I love the saying “The idea isn’t to die for your country, the idea is to make the enemy die for your country”.

DU rounds are highly effective against heavy armor in a lot of ways, but foreign countries’ sabot rounds are pretty effective as well. Any commonly used a/p penetrator round is enough to knock out a T-72 (or an M1A2 for that matter, provided you don’t hit the frontal turret armor). The real advantage of the M1 over the T-72 is speed, accuracy & especially range. An M1 can simply hit a T-72 sooner than the T-72 can return fire. T-72s also have an autoloader, which takes a certain amount of time to reload the main gun–another opportunity for the M1 to score a hit. Do not interpret this to mean the T-72 is no threat however. They can kill M1s & they have to be taken seriously. The T-55 is just as much of a threat to lighter vehicles.

The quote is Patton’s. It actually reads “…make the other guy die for HIS country…” which changes your meaning somewhat.

Hope all this was interesting enough for you :wink: …

Ozone27

@BigBlocky:

The point is nobody thought he was a HUGE threat, just a minor threat. They thought they could contain him. He was suicidal enough to think he could beat ALL the armies at once. He was building nuclear weapons and missles and germ warfare.

The nuclear research was for a power plant, according to the researchers.
And research on germ warfare is new to me too.
Second, he did not believe he could beat all armies at once. A war with England was thought of “finis germania”, he underestimated the support for Poland though, and was forced to have enemies and allies he didn’t want.

My biggest beef with those against what is going on is I don’t understand their end-game. I think we all have our ideas of where the US and Iraq will be in say 3 years.

Optimists …
Pessimists. … the Iraqis can’t hate everyone and eventually the country will rebuild.

A pessimist could assume that everyone can be hated.

Now, under the French idea. Sooner of later Saddam tricks the UN into thinking he is a good boy. The French get their wish, Saddam is totally free to do whatever he wants. Everybody will look the other way, Iraq might be better of in some ways. Lots of money will flow in as oil sales soar. Ummmm and Saddam will do what with lots of money, lots of time and a free hand to do as he pleases?

The Frenchs wish is not what you claim they wish. You are promoting simplistic propaganda. You treat the French and their plans worse than i treat the US IMO, or at least use extremely different measure for the two nations. Why do the French have no right to follow and promote their interests (regardless of Iraq, you sound they have no right at all to do so).

… sooner or later…Sooner or later

Honestly, do you speak of him or his sons? There isn’t too much “later” for a 65 year old dictator.

@BigBlocky:

… did a compare/contrast with the French and US that the US would indeed come out ahead over say the last 100 years. Lets forget all the nasty stuff done to the Spanish and Indians in the 1800s cause that was some bad dodo.

Uhm, if you did a compare with the Germans and US over the last 50 years…. if you did a compare with the Iraqis before Saddam with whatever…
Let’s take out our most negative points and claim we are the best…

@Deviant:Scripter:

My point is that you try to make the US look better than the French. A point i strongly disagree. Notice that this does not mean that i want to make the French look better than the US: both have an extensive list of “wrongdoing”.

The US is better than France. :wink:

I would challenge you that the US has done a lot more good in the world than France has.

When? How do you fine “has done”, or “more good”?
This question could be answered completely differently by a French person then an American given that they both might use entirely different criteria and the criteria they use in common might be assigned comletely different values to. For example if we were to rate gifts of culture given the world, one could well ascribe France a +10 and the U.S. a -10. In terms of globel comfort, the same might also be said. Adding what good the U.S. has done in its existance minus the bad on the globel peace scale would be tough as obviously Palastine and Russia might ascribe it a different value than Canada or Australia. All four countries would also disagree about France, but i have a feeling they would have a higher “average”.
Should the US lose points for Vietnam, for racial segregation UNTIL THE 1960’s!!, for MacDonald’s? Should France get points for the good that the French foreign legion does, its committments to environmentalist causes and peace (minus, of course, its own brands of imperialism, constant rioting, and French people . . . )?

@BigBlocky:

DS, I’d agree that if you tallied up the good and bad and did a compare/contrast with the French and US that the US would indeed come out ahead over say the last 100 years. Lets forget all the nasty stuff done to the Spanish and Indians in the 1800s cause that was some bad dodo.

This is pretty easy. Let’s too forget about the work of the CIA, the environmental disaster that is the US, the slavery and racial problems sponsored until late this last century, and if we ignore the good that the French have done, then its a slam dunk!!

You can point out lots of little bad things the US did around the world in the last 100 years but…… You can blame the entire WWI and WWII (except maybe the Japanese side of the conflict) completely on Europe. Japan was a bad actor but when the US cut of their fuel supplies in 1941 what did the US think they Japanese would do?

Europe started the two biggest messes in the history of humanity. Without the US of A in WWII, Nazi Germany would still be ruling the world today. It’s debatable if France and England could have defeated the Kaiser in WWI, after all, Russia had sued for peace in 1917, one down two to go. The addition of 100, 000 fresh US troops/month starting towards the end of 1917 and continuing for as long as the Germans wanted to fight really was the final nail in the Kaisers coffin.

The French were never sufficiently gratefull in my opinion…

BB

ahhh Europe. How about Germany? I guess you could narrow the field of blame to Serbia and Austria in WWI and Germany/Italy in WWII, but what would be the point when you can invoke a whole continent? Considering that Canada was involved too in both wars, then you can pretty much blame North America as well.
That is a fair point about Japan. Still, i’m missing the point of this. Also i don’t think of Europe as a block/country yet. There is a mass of very different communities, as different as Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and China, with the sense to simplify their lives somewhat.

Also i disagree that without the US we would be under the thumb of the German superman. Possibly a pissed off Russia, but i think that with the Anglo threat in the west tempering any German reinforcements to the eastern front, as well as an increasingly active French resistance, the Germans had overextended themselves and were starting to get slaughtered in Russia. Without the US the war would have lasted several years more, more soldiers would have been killed, and the US would have become less of an entity in the world - in Europe, anyway.

As for French gratitude, i’m curious as to what increasing this would have meant? Are Britain and Canada and Holland etc. not grateful enough? American’s have to wake up to the fact that they did not “save the world’s asses” as they claim, but they and their allies saved their own.

@cystic:

I guess you could narrow the field of blame to Serbia and Austria in WWI …

I guess not :)…. For WWI, it was all major powers who felt they were at the brink of a war, for some it was kind of a relief when it actually started.
I would like to blame all major powers for WWI: Germany gave Austria the assurance to stand by it whatever comes, the Russians (with the French backing) heavily supported and were allied with the Serbs etc etc.
WWII as a single event is caused by Germany, in the historic context on the other hand it’s often called “WWI part 2”.

@BigBlocky:

European men gotta start knocking up their chicks cause the native birthrate is low.

Well, if it was so, it didn’t help the birth-rates over here.

Let’s not forget the US lend-lease program. (that violated internation law, those bad Americans flouting international law to stop nazis, shame on them!)

sigh you do not want to understand my position, do you? WWII was started by Germany and on its way when the lend-lease got on its way. Why btw would that have been violating international law? dumping prices??

Did you know the French actually fired on allied units during the desert campaign? The French REFUSED to move their fleet when they were being overrun because they were too proud. The brits actually had to sink the French fleet rather than let the Germans capture them. Yeah, LOTS of help.

Which desert campaign (the US landing on Vichy France territory)? For the French Navy: Yes, not handing over the ships to British was a strange move. The Brits sinking those ships was understable and the only thing they could do. … Did you notice that just one sentence before that you said the French shot at allies (without giving any idea of why they did or how it happened), but the Allies ‘shooting’ at the French is absolutely ok for you (well, you give the reason, but use nicer words instead of ‘shooting’)?
One thing that should not be forgotten about the Germans conquering France: It was the best lesson on “German Tank Tactics and Strategy” that the allies could get, better than anything Allied intelligence could have taught.

Japan was a bad actor but when the US cut of their fuel supplies in 1941 what did the US think they Japanese would do?

Well, I can tell you they weren’t thinking that Japan would launch a viscous assault on Pearl, without a formal declaration of war, all the while leading up to that, conducting peace talks.

Japan was no angel leading up to 1941. That had violently invaded Korea and China from, at least, 1937 and it might have been earlier…I don’t the exact dates. The sanctions were there to ebb Japanese aggression and they were not just American sanctions.

America is not to blame for everything that is wrong in the world…now or then. When do “other” nations become responsible for their own actions?
K, that last bit is a rant… :D