Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
It is a perfectly valid analogy, because Saddam was trying VERY hard to be Hitler.
Hitler a) invaded Poland, and justified it to the world. The world shrugged and said "Ok". Hitler went on to annex Austria, etc.
Saddam b) invaded Kuwait, and justified it to the world. The US responded.
Hitler a) rounded up Jews, Gypsies, gays, and other "undesireables" and killed them. The world said, "it's Germany's internal affair.
Saddam b) rounded up Kurds, Shiites, political opponents and killed them. The US asked the UN to follow through on their sanctions. The UN said no. (France said, "hell no"). The US acted.
Hitler a) simply wanted America to stay out of the war or since we were aiding England, to sue for peace after Japan attacked us. His real goal was to just take over western Europe. There were those in America that thought this was ok.
Saddam b) simply wanted America to stay out of the war while he took over most of the Arabian pennisula. There are those in America that think this would have been ok.
|
Saddam invaded kuwait, hitler invaded most of europe. No comparison. Intent alone does not a threat make. You have to have the capabilities, which saddam clearly did not. Do you honestly think saddam was capable of taking over the middle east? On top of that, do think he would then follow that with an attempt to take over the entire free world? The same saddam with the same iraqi army that couldn't put up more than a two week struggle against the u.s. army?
The people who thought hitler was none of their business were being shortsighted. I doubt there is much evidence, especially in light of the whole "no wmd's at all" thing that would portray the iraqi threat as anything more than marginal. While saddam would maybe appreciate the comparison, I think it is laughable that you would put saddam on the same level as hitler.
Besides, i thought that ww2 analogies were always in poor taste. Or is that only when the anti-bush crowd employs them?