10 Mar 03
Originally posted by latex bishopUrban Legend. Look at the web address when you do that.
someone sent me something very interesting today, go into google and type French military victories and hit the I feel lucky button.
Not the result you would expect!
Andrew
Since we are talking about France...
Not that I agree 100% with the idea of war. Lets just remember this: Does anyone remember what happened when they gave Hilter more time and space???
Bill
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 599487
10 Mar 03
Originally posted by willatkinsThree cheers for Bill. Chess, as in life, leads to a very cramped position when you give up too much time and space🙂
Urban Legend. Look at the web address when you do that.
Since we are talking about France...
Not that I agree 100% with the idea of war. Lets just remember this: Does anyone remember what happened when they gave Hilter more time and space???
Bill
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
10 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by willatkinsI think France got off quite lightly when mentioning the "H" fellow, Eastern Europe and Belgium in particular were torn apart.
Urban Legend. Look at the web address when you do that.
Since we are talking about France...
Not that I agree 100% with the idea of war. Lets just remember this: Does anyone remember what happened when they gave Hilter more time and space???
Bill
Sadam Hussain is not Hitler, Sadam Hussain does not want to take over the world and make it in his image (no mein kampf (soory for the spelling) here). Sadam Hussain is just as bad as any despot around the globe. Would Al Gore taking this course of action now had he became president? If you remember how close he came to being president! Probably not, and that is a concern.
Andrew
10 Mar 03
Hitler may have wanted to take over the world. But, I don't think he could have.
Sadam Hussain is not Hitler, Sadam Hussain does not want to take over the world and make it in his image (no mein kampf (soory for the spelling) here). Sadam Hussain is just as bad as any despot around the globe. Would Al Gore taking this course of action now had he became president? If you remember how close he came to being president! Probably not, and that is a concern.
Andrew[/b]
So, lets compare Saddam. First Iran, second Kuwait. who's next? I'm not saying lets run storming in a kill everything in sight. But, the facts speak for themselves. 1 million dead Iranians, an invasion of Kuwait, countless dead Iraq citizens. If these deaths were westerners and not Arabs, you know that the west would be looking for his head on a silver platter.
Someday, he might get his marbles together and keep what he tries to take. Then he takes something else and keeps it. So, Austria, Poland... does anyone else see it?
10 Mar 03
Originally posted by willatkinsThe difference is, Saddam was not able to capture either Iran or Kuwait, he was stopped. Since then he has not attacked any country. What, therefore is the immediate motivation for attacking him?
Hitler may have wanted to take over the world. But, I don't think he could have.
So, lets compare Saddam. First Iran, second Kuwait. who's next? I'm not saying lets run storming in a kill everything in sight. But, the facts speak for themselves. 1 million dead Iranians, an invasion of Kuwait, countless dead Iraq citizens. If these deaths were ...[text shortened]... Then he takes something else and keeps it. So, Austria, Poland... does anyone else see it?
-mike
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
10 Mar 03
Originally posted by willatkinsOn the Hitler taking over the world...
Hitler may have wanted to take over the world. But, I don't think he could have.
So, lets compare Saddam. First Iran, second Kuwait. who's next? I'm not saying lets run storming in a kill everything in sight. But, the facts speak for themselves. 1 million dead Iranians, an invasion of Kuwait, countless dead Iraq citizens. If these deaths were ...[text shortened]... Then he takes something else and keeps it. So, Austria, Poland... does anyone else see it?
Initially, if Britain had fallen in 1940 there would not have been a western front, Germany would have pushed all its forces into the Eastern front and there is a strong chance Russia would have been defeated or reached a truce with Germany (Stalin had done this once already). Northern Africa would have fallen to the Germans quickly and probably much of the then British controlled Middle East. America is not at war with Germany yet - Peal Harbour is December 1941. So by mid 1941 Germany would effectively control 1/3 of the world.
Now the big issue would be what would happen next? Its safe to say Germany would have invented the nuclear bomb, they had the best scientists really (hence the US - Soviet struggle to capture them at the end of the war). Germany would probably attack Russia first, no love lost there. Leaving Japan, America and Germany.
To compare Iraq to Germany...
Hitler was the leader of a political movement, a political movement that wanted to change the entire civilisation of the world under nazi control. Sadam Hussain just want to survive and be a king in his own realm, if he was staking a claim at big time why not invade Saudi - that would give him control over most of the major significant places in the Muslim religion, as well, he would have control over the middle easts oil. Instead he attacks Iran, mainly as he will get backing from the US to allowing him to do it, and then Kuwait, a country most of us had never heard of until 1990. Nazi Germany created weapons of mass destruction to debase the world, Sadam just want to save his ass and look tough.
So all I am saying is do not believe the hype, if we in the world want to sort out oppression what about say china, tibet anyone?
Andrew
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by willatkinsWho was it that was supplying Saddam with weapons and money, and patting him on the back while he attacked Iran? It was the US, that's who. We were only too happy to support Saddam Hussein while he was attacking Iran. But now that events have changed, we turn around and claim that Saddam is an evil man because he attacked countries like Iran. We just pretend like we had nothing to do with that whole event. Don't you think that level of hypocrisy casts some doubt on our credibility in the eyes of the world?
Hitler may have wanted to take over the world. But, I don't think he could have.
So, lets compare Saddam. First Iran, second Kuwait. who's next? I'm not saying lets run storming in a kill everything in sight. But, the facts speak for themselves. 1 million dead Iranians, an invasion of Kuwait, countless dead Iraq citizens. If these deaths were ...[text shortened]... Then he takes something else and keeps it. So, Austria, Poland... does anyone else see it?
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by rwingettmaby, but P. George W. Bush cant do anything about what happend then
Who was it that was supplying Saddam with weapons and money, and patting him on the back while he attacked Iran? It was the US, that's who. We were only too happy to support Saddam Hussein while he was attacking Iran. But now that events have changed, we turn around and claim that Saddam is an evil man because he attacked countries like Iran. We just prete ...[text shortened]... you think that level of hypocrisy casts some doubt on our credibility in the eyes of the world?
13 Mar 03
I think a good point to make is that now, just as in WWII, we didn't give a damn untill something happend to us. When something happens to us we do a really big 180. Remember all the talk on TV about how the Afghanistan women were treated? Don't you think we have known that for quite some time? And yet, all of a sudden we give a damn. Peachy. 😛