Why can't Liberals admit that appeasement and containment does not work?

Question

Throughout the 20th Century, anytime a Hitler or someone like him was appeased we paid for it in lives, by the millions.

Why can't Liberals see that and understand that Pre-emptive action and force is all people like a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein understands?

Again Liberals can't make their argument with an answer, so they answer with a question.

Saddam Hussein admitted to his CIA interrogator, what we already suspected.

He sent deliberate disinformation out of his country to keep the West and his local enemies thinking he had these weapons. He did this thinking it would stop anyone from attacking him.

One of the other Libs here tried to use Colin Powell words to defend their position. At the end of the quote he stated that Hussein was still seeking banned weapons. Hello, banned weapons included bioweapons and nukes.

The Republicans are damned either way. If we act, we are criticized for nation building. If we don't and something happens, then we are called to the carpet for not doing enough.

The Bush Administration handled the post-war mop up badly, but that doesn't mean that capturing and executing Hussein wasn't the right thing to do.

Answer 1

Well said friend...It's unfortunate that it's falling on deaf ears.They just want to be bliss-full,and ignorant.
The"What If" scenario will never be listened to.Bush would be damned if he did,and damned if didn't.
If he let the Iraq situation go on," What if" Saddam did have weapons and he didn't stop him.It would fall upon the next administration to deal with it.He didn't want a repeat of the Carter screw-ups or the Clinton style of launching a few missiles at a aspirin factory.
Whose ever side your on President Bush will go down as a great President(That's my opinion)or the worst .
History will judge not man.I'm very proud that my President stood up instead of cowering or worse yet treating a terrorist attack like a small time crime(The sheik should be dead not in prison with a loony lawyer.)
My only regret is that the scales hadn't fallen off my eyes back pre 9/11.I would have felt better about my self(I voted for Bill not once but twice).The Lord is on his time not ours.

Answer 2

Containment will never work wih the likes of Hitler.
I would never put Saddam in the same league as Hitler.
I do think Mohmenajhad is going to lead this world to a major war.

As far as some responses go I agree with the comparison about Neville Chamberlain, he was up for a Nobel peace prize.

All this after returning with a signed document from Hitler that he said would bring peace

The ONLY voice that said war was coming was Churchill, he was called a warmonger because he knew the Germans earned there name (ie. German means warman)
He knew they should never be allowed to arm themselves and look what we have today.

History repeating itself once again. All we need now is for Russia and Germany to sign a peace deal then war will follow as it has 6 times already.

Answer 3

Your obvious bias toward the conservative wing makes this question not even worth answering, but I will anyway.

I'm not sure if the word "appease" is the best word to use in describing our attitude towards Hitler in WWII. When exactly did we appease him? Granted, we didn't join the war for a few years; but after the sh*t hit the fan at Pearl Harbor, we were a MAJOR force in the war.

I think it is funny that you seem to think the US's (the Bush administration's) motives are pure. I completely agree that taking down Hitler was the absolute right thing to do. But Hussein is a different situation - although Bush may pitch the "human rights" card when asked why we're in Iraq, that is not the reason - we are in Iraq for oil (but that's a whole other issue that I'm not going to get into). Way worse things have been going on in the world than the Iraq situation. For instance, Darfur, where somewhere around 400,000 people have been murdered. But Bush isn't doing anything about that is he?

Also: We should leave Iraq immediately due to the fact that whether we leave now or later there is going to be one helluva civil war there. The situation in Iraq is a unique one because the people are split along religious lines and no compromise is possible. They will never get along and the fighting will never stop, no matter what any ultra conservative tells you.

Answer 4

In my opinion, they do not really think it does. However, it provides much needed cover for what they intend to do regarding threats to our country and interests. It serves well as an excuse for inaction.

Throughout all of history, diplomacy without the willingness to use force necessary to back it up is worse than doing nothing. The lessons are numerous from Chamberlain with Hitler to Clinton with Arafat to Albright with Kim Jong-il.

If you desire peace, prepare for war.

Talk softly but carry a big stick.

The lessons are manifest.

Merry Christmas!

.

Answer 5

Containment was working just fine with Iraq. There was no appeasement of Iraq going on, no land was given to him, he was under economic sanctions and no fly zones were being enforces. Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ability to attack the US and was in no way a threat to the US.

The situation in Europe in the 1930's is in not comparable to the Iraq situation. Hitler would have started WWII with or without appeasement -- and there was no country at the the time that could have stood up to Hitler militarily, certainly not the US, which was basically isolationist at the time and had a very small military.

Answer 6

Are you sure?

Colin Powell said this regarding Saddam on February 20, 2001:

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia...

QUOTE:
"The fact of the matter is that both baskets, the UN basket and what we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. His forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago."

"The danger he presents to the world is that he does pursue weapons of mass destruction, against the agreements that he entered into."
UNQUOTE

That's what Bill Clinton said when he carried out strikes against Saddam--Clinton contained Saddam and was successful.

"One of the other Libs here tried to use Colin Powell words to defend their position. At the end of the quote he stated that Hussein was still seeking banned weapons. Hello, banned weapons included bioweapons and nukes."

Hello, guess Clinton was right to strike against Iraq, even though Senator Trent Lott said it was an effort to take focus off the sham impeachment...

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/congressional.react/index.html

And hello, as Powell said, containment was working. If he steps out of bounds, we just slap his hand. Where are all the weapons that Bush said Saddam had sticking out of his ears under every floor panel of the Saddam's palace? Wasn't that the "grave and gathering threat"?

Answer 7

In the history of the alternate universe that you live in did containment fail against the Soviet Union? Did you have to fight World War III to defeat the Soviets?

Answer 8

Chamberlain and the modern liberals do seem to have marched to the same beat

Answer 9

You are 100% correct but your first answerer said it for the Democrats.

Answer 10

Saddam WAS contained. Arms control was working. How quickly you guys forget to cover up your colossal foreign policy mistakes.