How would you have handled it?

Question

There are alot of similarities between how Hitler & Hussein ran their countries, including their acts of genocide, attacking every country around them, & horrible accounts of torture & mass murder. The only differences are 1. Hitler was more successful than Hussein & 2. To appease the "Keep America Weak" contingent, America gave Hitler alot more room to carry out his vicious & horrible acts than we gave Saddam (that is to say, we learned from our mistakes from our experience dealing with mad men in the past & used that experience to prevent greater atrocities from happening).

Is there really no situation whatsoever in which America has the right to get involved in foreign affairs to either protect our country from things that are happening now, OR prevent other things that seem most likely to happen down the road? If you think America does have the right to take action (proactive or otherwise) where would you draw the line.

The idea that Iraq’s economy was great before we went over there and ruined it is preposterous. They made a lot of money from the sale of oil (and not much else) and almost all of it went into their military and used to attack their neighbors, or into Saddam’s pocket so he could build new palaces, or bunkers, or fancy car’s for his sons. We have pumped billions of dollars back into their economy and that money would show greater results except there are still so many terrorists loyal to Saddam that they blow their country up on a daily basis requiring us to spend even more money to put the country back together.

There is an old saying I bet everyone has heard a million times that goes “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” What exactly do you say one someone tries to fool you a thousand times over a 12-year period, and then people are mad when you do something about it? Shame on America’s educational system?

I would understand if a country wanted to build a nuclear weapon to protect themselves against other nations that had one. I wouldn’t be happy if they said they were going to build it specifically to use it against us or one of our allies particularly right after they attacked one of them – and were unprovoked and unjustified in doing so. If you witness a murder and then the murder turns to you and says, “you’re next”, I doubt you will accept an offer to go for a moonlit stroll. What I meant by being proactive was not that just because we don’t trust someone we should do something aggressive just in case they ever decide to do something against us, but rather to express the idea that if I was stuck down a dark alley with no other way out except to try to get past a guy who was loading a gun and threatening to shoot me as soon as he was done, well I would do whatever I could do to get past the guy and not get shot even if I had to knock him down in my attempt to save my own life.

From reading the extremely anti-American posts that I have seen on this site over the last few months, I get the impression that many people on here believe that it is a much greater “crime” to defend yourself (or others) from terror, torture, murder, or God knows what else, than the crimes of whatever actual horrible things are being done towards you (or someone else). Should we really stick our head in the sand and say “well as long as I don’t see a threat in my hole, I am ok? Does that really protect us from anyone sneaking up from behind to kick us in our big feathery ****?

Saddam Hussein had twelve years to prove he had stopped trying to build a nuclear weapon (which he admitted publicly that he’d use as soon as he was successful) after we had undeniable proof leading up to the first war that he was trying to build (&/or buy) one as quickly as he could. He had missiles that were powerful enough to carry nuclear warheads and hit countries as far away as Israel (even if you don’t like Israel, the point of this is that the distance his missiles could reach was expanding as was the number of things he could do with them) and he was continuing to try to advance his technology right up until the day the second war started. He made continual threats against us. He financially sponsored terrorism in other countries.

He committed acts of genocide against the Kurds and did all sorts of horrible things against his own people. He had stockpiles of Serin and mustard gases (chemical weapons), which we found after the second war began, and some of them have been made into IED’s and used to attack us even after he was out of power. He continued to express hatred towards Kuwait every since we made him give their country back and would have attacked them again in a second if we left. In our defense of them, our navy pilots were attacked by missiles every day for 12 years after the end of the first war.

By proactive, I mean, he was threatening us and attacking us from his side of the dark alley. It’s a good thing we didn’t wait for him to load his gun (increase the range of his missiles well enough to hit us) before we stopped him from doing what he promised us he would do.

Answer 1

Sovereignty. Period.

We don't attack countries that have not abused the sovereignty of our allies or ourselves.

Iraq attempted the assassination of our President (Bush the elder), attacked an ally (Kuwait), paid suicide bombers (on TELEVISION, no less) to kill civilians in Israel, and repeatedly broke the cease-fire they asked for and the conditions they agreed to FOR TEN YEARS.

I'd say they lost their sovereignty, wouldn't you?

Korea hasn't. Iran hasn't. That's why we haven't attacked.

We're watching.

Oh, I'm a democrat. But first and foremost, I'm a patriot.

Answer 2

Hitler and Saddam had many things in common and some things that were very different.

Hitler had a nation that was suffering from the great depression and the terrible cost of having lost the first World War. The high price the Germans paid allowed Hitler to rise to power.

The German army when Hitler came to power was about 100,000 troops as mandated by the Paris peace treaty. (that box car the treaty was signed in also saw some action in the second World War. It was destroyed after the French surrendered to Hitler.)

Hitler, steamrolled across Europe using the blitzkreig war tatics. Russia was his downfall, by attacking those folks, he sealed his fate. A two front war by defination is something one has to avoid.

The economy of Germany was at its very best just before Hitler attacked Poland. He had the Autobaun built and the VW designed and built.

Hitler as a mass murderer was second to none (Joe Stalin was a contender). 6 Million Jews, up to 25 Million Russians and others died by his command.

Saddam, once he took over followed the Hitler/Stalin plan for dictatorship.

Iraq's economy was in fairly good shape when Saddam came into power.

Saddam's military while over 2 million folks, had major problems during the Iran/Iraq war. Primarly funded by the Soviet Union with weapons and armour, they still could not beat the Iranian army.

The First Gulf War was directly a result of the Iran/Iraq war, due to Saddam had to somehow pay for all of those war loans.

Saddam's defeat in the First Gulf War destroyed most of his armour and aircraft. Not to mention all of the desertions of his army due to heavy bombing.

Saddam tortured anyone that didn't agree with him. He let his sons torture folks as well.

Saddam killing spree included the Shia and the Kurds, Iranians, and anyone who tried to defy him.

The problem with dictators is wheather to let them hang around or wipe them off the map. Hitler used Chamberlin and Kennedy as his peacemakers. The US remembering WWI wanted to placate Hitler and not get involved. Which we really didn't until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Saddam didn't like Iran, and since the US didn't either we supported him until he attacked Kuwait. Once he attacked Kuwait, and threatned to attack Saudi Arabia. Sometime in the future he was going to be deposed as his usefullness came to an end.

One reason we haven't gone into North Korea or Cuba is that neither are a real threat to the US. The North Koreans may have the bomb, however if they ever use it against South Korea, 'ole Kim will be turned into kimche.

So, if Fidel and Kim keep quiet they are likely to be safe.

Answer 3

The problem with the proactive approach is a slippery slope.

If any country has the right or duty to "protect" itself or the world from what *might* happen, then society eventually lapses into anarchy and world war because of worldwide paranoia or greed or hunger for power. The reason I say this is the ease with which a learder can say: "They are planning something, I think we need to take care of it."

With the proactive approach, for example, Russia could decimate the US solely because Putin decides that the US *might* be planning something.

For example:
Country A hates country B and B reciprocates that hatred. A would then be perfectly justified in attacking B on the sole basis that B *might* be planning something and just keeping it such a secret that no one else knows. And no one would be able to say it nay because who's to say that B wasn't planning something.

It's a dangerous and slippery slope that leads to dictatorship and war. I would be willing to bet that if you really studied it, great Imperialists from Alexander to Neploean to Hitler took out peaceful countries or races because they were a "threat."

I do not think any country has the right to invade, decimate, and occupy any country that has not made agressive moves. "They might have weapons of mas destruction somewhere" doesn't cut it as a reason to go to war.

I also agree with whomever said that the US should fix itself before "fixing" other countries. Before the US government decides to force itself and its policies on another country, it should make sure that its policies are above reproach -- which I would venture to say, judging by the state of this country, is not true.

When no one in the US is illiterate, starving, or homeless, then the US government has the right and duty to help others, but not until then.

Answer 4

Here's another difference between Hitler and Saddam. Hitler has a huge military force and was actively invading and conquering other nations, with no provocation, including those friendly to the United States. Saddam, at the time of the invasion, had no army to speak of, was not engaged in any aggressive activities, In fact, Saddam's two major military actions came about as a result of hostile or provocative actions by the countries he eventually attacked. These differences make your entire case fall apart.

So sorry, but you cannot draw a convincing parallel between Germany at the beginning of WWII and Iraq at any point.

Answer 5

The problem with Iraq is that Bush was so determined to invade and catch Saddam that he was willing to lie and flush the Constitution of the United States down the toilet. And was getting at Saddam to protect us, or to punish anyone for 9/11? No, it was not. It was so that Bush's oil buddies could get their hooks into Iraqi oil, and so that Bush could settle an old family score with Saddam.

Answer 6

We are not obligated to take care of others. We are obligated to take care of America. We are doing the first, and not the second. When is it more important to feed other countries, but hold the poor unaccountable for a lack of a job? When is it more important to secure other borders than to secure our own?

I think that we did the right thing in WWII, but we are doing the wrong thing in Iraq. We tore their country apart without any feasible plan of restoring it.

So, to answer your question, I believe that after we take care of our own, then we can go in and "help" other nations.

Answer 7

Having the world's most dominant armed forces means you have the responsibility to watch out for those who cannot defend themselves. Yes, it's unpopular. War is unpopular: however, when the UN was created as a source of peace between the international community, there was no enforcement mechanism created. Tarriffs and sanctions do not stop murderers, brute force does.

Answer 8

i would hate to think the answer is closing down our borders and shutting out the rest of the world.i wouldnt want to assassinate another ruler unless he was found to be a terrorist or something along those lines.i think we did the right thing and got hussien out and let his country take care of the rest.i wouldnt want to force out a ruler just to get our guy in.most people think we already do it,well prove it.we seem to be the ones mopping up everyone elses messes because noone else will.

Answer 9

If the 'War on Terror' was for real and serious, then the borders would be closed and militarized, illegals deported and student visas scrutinized and revoked.

The troops would be given the order to do what is necessary to achieve full victory without regard to political, social or religious beliefs by our politicians.

That is how any true Patriot who loves America would handle it!!!!