Well, I gotta say,

I love discussing history, especially politics and war. I would like to respond to this with a few facts of my own, and it's my sincere hope that since mine is not the generally popular opinion on this site, that my post will not be construed as "stirring up" the proverbial pot, as our benevolent webmaster has put it. I am merely contributing my thoughts in what I feel is the most positive way I can- by being honest about them with all who read my posts.

First of all, I am very much aware of the differences between a fact, and an opinion. I think it is rather arrogant to post the websters dictionary meanings of the two as if to say that others on this board cannot differentiate between the two for themselves...I would not do that.

When I signed off on the original post (" the facts are facts"), I was referring to the editor's own referrences to our tainted past.
And that those things did happen is a matter of fact, and not open to interpretation. The Japanese were interned in camps throughout the duration of the war-that is a fact. The how is not open to interpretation, only the why.


____quote_____
Now let's look at some other facts:

Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has a history of mass murder, genocide and invading neighboring countries. Sounds a little like a fellow who back in 1941 caused a little fracas you might be familiar with, it's commonly known as World War II.
________________

You are correct, Saddam is a dictator who has a history of mass murder, genocide, and invading neighboring countries.
He also has a history of being supplied by the United States for eight years straight, with almost every conceivable type of weapon in our arsenal, with the exception of nuclear weapons.
The reason? His eight year long war with Iran from 1980-88.
During this time Saddam was doing just as you say-trying to invade a neighboring country, and we were helping him, by supplying 50 billion dollars worth of war materials to Iraq.

George Bush Sr. co-ordinated, and managed the distribution of these materials to Saddam during his tenure as VP in the Reagan Administration, but none of this was put on Ronald or George and they managed to cover their assets....ever hear of Oliver North?

As far as the little guy with the funny looking mustach goes, do you know how it was he even managed to become the german Fuhrer? He was elected! First as Chancellor, then as President.
Upon the death of Hindenburg he combined the powers and positions of both offices, and declared himself dictator and Fuhrer.
How could this be? How could such a madman so captivate a whole nation with his cause that he could be VOTED in?? By unfair treatment toward Germany from the other nations involved in the First World War. Germany was forced to comply with unfair and unreasonable demands as a result of the armistace signed in Versaillies which ended the war. This came to be known as the Treaty of Versaillies. According to this document Germany was forced to make reparations to the UK, the USA and France, as well Germany had to accept all responsibility for starting the war, besides this she had to give up her Navy, and her Airforce. Her Army could consist of no more than 100,000 men, and of these no more than 1/2 were to ever be mobilised at any one time. She was forced to cede the Ruhr industrial valley to France, and East Prussia to the newly formed nation of Poland.
This cut Germany's land mass by half, and it was widely known that the Ruhr valley ceded to France comprised more than 50% of Germanys more valuable natural resources such as coal, and industrial capability-further hindering her ability to meet the reperations imposed upon her. The fact that this newly castrated Germany would never be able to feed her own people let alone make any substanial reparartions suited Britain, and France just fine. For many years prior to the war, both were incontent with the fact that Germany was quickly becoming the most economically prosperous nation in Europe, with overseas colonies that rivaled those of both Britain and France. France was a particularly cruel antagonist who abused the native german population of the Ruhr valley during their occupation. The victorious Allies dismissed the german government of the Kaiser, and set in it's place a democracy modeled to their own ideals. But with all the abuses and immpossible demands that were placed on this new government- there was no way it could ever hope to work out. And the ones who were forced to bear the brunt of all this were the German people themselves-who remained indignant that they should foot the bill for the whole war, and be force to acknowledge responsibility for it as well. Anyone even slightly familiar with the facts concerning this war knows that it was not started by the Germans at all. There were many causes and the dynamics in Europe at that time show this.
Eventually Britain started to relinquish its harsh demands on Germany, realizing that her one time powerful rival was now nothing more than a shadow of her former self, Britain especially feared that Germany might be swept up in the tidal wave of communism which was threatening to cross Russia's boundaries, and roll across Europe. France remained indignant, and insisted that reparations payments be kept up on time, even though this was impossible. During this time there appeared a man who openly spoke out against the treaty of Versaillies, he denounced it's provisions, and accused those who signed it of being traitors to Germany. He spoke openly and passionately to whole mobs on street corners, about how Germany should be restored to her former greatness. He reminded germans that they were not less than those who had imposed the immpossible provisions upon them. People listened to him. He began rebuilding the german army, even before he had assumed the necessary powers to do so, he booted the french from the Ruhr valley, he created jobs for all the german classes, and insisted that all germans unite in a fervor of nationalistic pride. He withdrew Germany from the league of nations and declared the Versallies treaty null and void.

In the time of 8 years he had almost single handedly transformed Germany from a poor European country with 3rd world living conditions, in to a nation with the strongest army in the world, and the third largest economy. People loved him.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Adolf Hitler had died of some natural causes prior to the outbreak of WWII, that he would have gone down as the greatest leader in modern german history.

We (the allies) created all of the necessary conditions for a man like Hitler to come to power, just as we (the USA) helped create all the necessary conditions for Saddam to dominate the middle east. I will not ignore history, or it's lessons to accomodate the zealous patriotisms of those who are less informed than I.


___quote_______
The fact is that Iraq's leader along with several other current heads of state is what's known as a "destabilizing influence". Hitler was the same type of influence and we all saw what happened when we let him stay in power for too long. In today's world with the proliferation of weapons of not just mass destruction but actual global extinction we cannot afford to allow these "destabilizing influences". It's just too dangerous.
______________

We did not think it was too dangerous when we supplied him with these weapons, so why is it too dangerous now? What is your interpretation of a "destabilizing influence"? WMD? Who do you think provided Saddam with his bio weapons capabilities?
While he was at war with Iran all Saddam needed to do was ask, and he would recieve. The US department of commerce specifically licensed 17 different strains of West Nile virus, and several more strains of Anthrax to be shipped from the CDC to Iraq. Why werent we concerned with his "destabilizing influence", when these bio weapons were being used against the Iranians?

Terrorism? The US has collaberated with it's fair share as well, when it has suited our needs. Remember Russia's war with Afganistan? Do you think the Afgans could really stand up to the Soviet Union without aid? The Afgans commited many atrocities over Russian borders, but to us that was not terrorism. We did in fact arm and train Afgan guerillas in the finer arts of terrorism so that their methods could be used more effectively in Russia. Osama learned very well from his American masters.

As far as stopping Hitler goes, we were not able to-not even close. If there had been a land bridge between Europe and North America in 1941, Hitler's army would have completely destroyed us in a matter of 4 months. Don't let pride get in the way on this one-it would have happened, Russia was much better prepared for war than we were at that time inspite of our production capabilities, and Russia was falling fast. The germans had already conquered an area of Russia, the size of the US from California to the Mississippi. And even then they were only stopped by the Russian winter.

____quote_____
The article you posted points out a few rather unsavory periods in the history of this country. We made some mistakes, the Japanese internment, allowing political opinion to determine military tactics, etc. The fact is we haven't repeated those mistakes which means we learned from them. Let's not make the mistake of letting an unstable dictator continue to rule when we have the means to stop him.
________________

I've already gone into the reasons why this is wrong...see above.

 

___quote___
> the Japanese internment

It was not a mistake. It was the best solution at hand. WW II was a "all or nothing" war, which we did not start, that cost over 405,000 soldiers lives. Not to mention all the civilians brutually killed by the Japanese.
_____________

The Japanese were particularly brutal to civilian and soldier alike- what happened in Nanking in China is evidence of this. We may not have started the war per say, but we certainly provoked Japanese aggression hoping that they would start a war with us, so that we could actively participate in Europes war going on at the same time, it was the only way to overcome the isolationists feelings of the general public at the time. You don't really think we were stupid enough to leave a big tasty fleet sitting defenseless in Pearl Harbor, without our reasons do you? also notice how all our carriers wer'ent there that day?


___quote____
The Chinese in this country for generations since the railroads were built were not rounded up, were they? No, they even served and died in our armed forces.
____________

Many fine Japanese American soldiers fought for our country along side whites and blacks in both theatres of that war.

____quote_____
What the government should have done is move everything into secure storage, let them keep their houses, and then move them into government built camps. Compensate for lost wages and jobs when the war was over.
______________

This is exactly what they did more or less, but it still does not make it right, German, and Italian Americans were not treated in this way, and we were at war with both those countries as well.
This shows that the prejudices against the Japanese at that time had more to do with race than it did with the war. Italians and Germans are both white.

I hope I have not stirred the pot too much here but I feel I'm entitled to my opinions which are drawn from what I've learned, I certainly do not mean to insult or upset anyone by my comments.


Regards.

 

I posted the definitions for your's and BDV's benefit frank...I'm pretty sure everyone else could see how slanted that article was.

As far as Hitler being elected chancellor, well Saddam was elected as well, in fact he was just recently re-elected virtually unanimously. It doesn't legitimize his leadership any more than Hitler being elected legitimizes the holocaust. Your facts about post WWI Germany are essentially correct but there are many ways to interperet the facts. You put 1 spin on them while others see a different side of things. There are plenty of other approaches Hitler could have taken other than world domination...but he didn't. If there had been a land bridge to the North America Hitler could have conquered us in 4 months...but there isn't and he didn't. Woulda, coulda, shoulda...it's all quite spurious because the facts are not open for debate. Hitler was insane, he slaughtered millions of people and came very close to subjugating Europe before he was defeated. We (the allies) took him out...it's an indisputable fact. Now it's Saddam's turn.

Yes we supported Saddam in the war with Iran because Iran was our enemy. When they took some of our citizens hostage they became the bad guys. It's just that simple. When Iraq invaded Kuwait they became our enemy. Once again...it's a rather easy equation to follow. Some of our greatest allies were once our enemies. Some of our allies became our bitter enemies and then became allies again. Times change, leaders change, politics and policies change. It's how the world works, how things all balance out and when 1 man threatens to upset the balance of the world with his hatred and insanity then it's time to take him out.

 

Bill,
I agree with your reasoning as far as defending ourselves from possible attacks from other nations-terrorist attacks or otherwise.

I do not see where we are on the defense in Iraq however.
It would be one thing if Saddam had invadedanother country, and we chose to go to war to boot him out, and then decided to just invade Iraq to be done with him altogether.

It's quite another to spend 100 billion dollars to invade a country(for defensive purposes), when that country has not been shown to have any direct connections with those whom we are supposed to be defending ourselves from. Not Bush, nor anyone else has been able to show that Iraq has had any connections whatsoever with terrorist activities planned or used against the USA.
So now Bush gets away from this,(and his war on terrorism)
and instead turns to the issue of disarming Iraq as his motive for war with them since these links with terrorist activities could not be found.
But the real beauty of this whole situation is the way Saddam has been manipulated to do exactly as we want him to. U.N. inspectors have always roused a sense of suspicion from Saddam,
who like most dictators before him happens to be paranoid.
(Hitler, Stalin, Khruschev, etc).
U.N. weapons inspectors have seen Saddam destroy many WMD's for themselves, and have not been able to substaniate that he has more-what they have been able to substaniate is alot of chemical toxins which match the substances noted on records from the commerce dept. as having been sent to Saddam during his war with Iran. Inspite of this, being the character he is Saddam has always viewed the west with suspicion, and UN inspectors were not above this suspicion, this is why they've always been heavily guarded and restricted by Saddam. He does not trust us, nor our inspectors-how does he know who they really are? For all he knows they are assasins looking to take him out.
GW has played on this insecurity by making it public information that CIA operatives were being given full endorsement to take him out at any given opportunity that presents itself.
How culprert is that? Wheres the secrecy in that open statement.

Now Saddam who was already paranoid to begin with, will not co-operate with UN inspectors at all for fear of who they may be or what they may be carrying(poison, bombs, etc.) this plays right into Bush's hands, since he appears to be "reasonable", in wanting to avert war, and "only" seeks co-operation from Iraq!
This way Saddam runs past the deadline, and Bush has the excuse he's looking for to go in!.....Osama who?........

Burly,

Congrats on the 350SD PSD- that's one bad mo fo...lol.

Oh yeah,- I knew what you meant by the comparision- and I would'int want a fight neither...lol.

But it still felt good when BDV picked up for me, esp since by the time he got here it was like 4 or 5 vs me ...lol.


Regards.

 

OK, I have to throw this in. It was just an out of context remark I heard on the morning Radio show the other day, in reference to the fact that Russia, France and Germany are refusing to support a war... (NOTE: This was said by a comedian, not anybody who's opinion should be valued, so, before you start having a fit, see if you find it a little funny..)

"You know, maybe Bush should rethink this whole war thing, I mean, when even GERMANY is backing out of a war....."

OK, so maybe i was the only one who found a little humor in that.

 

why cant all countries be nice neighbors as we and canada are?

NOTE: please do not attemp to answer that, its a hope and a prayer more than a question.

 

Canada is America's summer playground...lol.

Canada is lucky to be neighbors with the worlds only superpower,
ever see the Canadian army? The NYPD could occupy all of canada in a matter of weeks...lol.

Americans will tolerate Canadians as long as they continue to suck down maple syrup and dont make to much trouble...lol.

Canada's economy is so bad, that Mexico is considering making them a loan. Mexico has it worse than we do, they are constantly trying to keep their own within their borders, and trying to keep the Canadians out. Many Mexican families are struggling due to lack of work- all the jobs are filled with Canadians who are willing to work for less.

Whats up with that Maple leaf on the Canadian flag?

Once while hunting in Canada I was a good way from camp when I really had to go bad. Had no clean ups, so I grabbed a handful of maple leaves and.....well, you get the idea..

To all my Canadian friends here, do these seem like the words of a cocky American?...lol.
I'm just bustin' chops, I've never really ragged on Canada before so I wanted to try it out.

I think I did ok. LOL!



Regards.

 

burly,
If you are going to use something like that as a comparison, you would do well to elaborate that in the same post; otherwise people will simply think you are being foolish, and then Ken gets angry.
Ken, I am sorry, I should have used more tact in my post...
And as far as the knowing difference between fact and opinion, and my ability to see the slant in an article, you must not have read many of my posts...trust me, I saw the slant, but then, I happen to be slanted that way a bit as well. Is it all fact? I dunno. Do I agree with it? For sure. Does it affect my opinions? Not really, those are pretty much formulated.

And to franktheman, we have crossed swords a few times, but I still got yo' back!

BDV

 

Ah so when all else fails play the "victim" card eh frank?

Well we didn't manipulate Saddam into gassing Kurdish villages. We didn't manipulate him into assasinating his political opponents or torturing political prisoners with acid showers. Pardon me if I don't lose sleep over the fact that Saddam has to scuttle back and forth between his dozen or so palaces to assuage his paranoia. After all this is a man who has no qualms about using women and children as human shields to defend his posessions.

No I can't see Saddam Hussein as the victim in this little drama. The Iraqi people are the victims and Saddam is the malignant tumor which needs to be removed. It seems the U.S. is the only doctor in town with a sharp scalpel and the intestinal fortitude to use it.

 

Frank, The following is a fair reprresentation of how MOST Canadians feel.

This is a Canadian writing about Canada & its leaders.

************************************************** *

I JUST had to write in reference to Lorrie Goldstein's column in the March 2 Sunday Sun. ("ABCs of peacekeeping - Anybody but Canada"). The smoke-and-mirrors assertion by many that we are a peacekeeping nation (only) has been part and parcel of an overall strategy to disarm Canada quietly. Our government has run to the peacekeeping cushion in order to dodge the "ugly business" while our friends and allies always have to get their hands dirty. Don't kid yourself, they know it and one day in the not-too-distant future, we will pay for it. The next time some monster contract arises where Britian, Australia, Spain and ourselves are in the running, we'll get handed our hat. Our friends will remember how we've conducted ourselves. Our leaders have sidestepped, cheated and outright lied their way through various alliances for years and it is finally coming to roost. There is no way on earth our allies will let us off the hook anymore on our disgusting display of "stealth pacifism." They've (our leaders) gelded our military to such an extent that we are patently incapable of meaningful participation in most conflicts. It's like joining a car pool, accepting the rides of other members, and when it comes your turn to drive, you say "sorry guys, my car has 350,000 kms on it, will only run for 5-minute intervals and you'll have to push." That defines Canada's disgusting approach to mutual defence and the alliances we sleaze off of. I love my country dearly, but on this issue, I'm completely ashamed.

Ian McDougall

(Our soldiers are doing their jobs, it's our politicians who should be ashamed)
**************************************************

For an idea about how people feel about things,

Read the letter's to the editor in every North American newspaper
that you can.

The Calgary Sun

 

You left the part out about how many people Hitler had to kill to become elected

Germany became a 'friend' and Iraq became an enemy since Iran. It happens all the time..... Remember we had to fight the Brits once too, oh wait, and now they're about the only country behind us.