Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Harry Reid and the war in Iraq part two

I thought I would comment on what both Sims and Angel said in a separate post with regards to The War in Iraq and Harry Reid. So this is part two.

First Sims says that we are no longer allowed to do the Saddam/Hitler analogy anymore, and why not? The analogy still holds. Hitler first entered the Rhineland, a demilitarized zone in Germany. According to the Versailles Treaty, Hitler was not allowed to enter. It was France’s responsibility to defend it but not without British support. The prime minister of Britain at the time was the inept Neville Chamberlain who was practicing his policy of appeasement. This policy of appeasement meant that if you gave reasonable demands to dissatisfied powers the “dissatisfied powers” would be appeased. This dissatisfied power was Germany. Therefore, Britain would not support France when Germany entered the Rhineland. This emboldened Hitler since he met no resistance. When he entered and annexed Austria, he became even more emboldened. After Austria, Hitler was bent on destroying Czechoslovakia so he met with France and Britain and made a deal that he would only enter the Sudetenland in North Western Czechoslovakia where many Germans resided. Chamberlain went home announcing to the British that he had made “Peace in our times”. The Czechs felt abandoned by their western allies. By this time Hitler, felt invincible and convinced himself that the western powers were too weak and would not fight. He became more emboldened with every step he took as he continued his conquest. Hitler was worried that Britain would ally herself with Russia to defend Poland, so Hitler circumvented Britain by signing a non-aggression pact with Russia in exchange for Eastern Poland and the Baltic states. This allowed Hitler to take over Poland. Again, he was emboldened.

There is no difference to what is happening now. First North Korea obtains the Nuclear Bomb and now Radical Islam continues with its plans to obtain a nuclear bomb because they know the West will not fight. They are right. The Democrats continue their appeasement efforts by insisting on talking with madmen. Tell me – what do we plan to offer to Iran to stop them from building a nuclear bomb? Do you really think they care? They will take what we give and break any agreement made just like Hitler and just like Kim Jong. Just as in the 1930s, Hitler believed we were too comfortable with our way of life, so too Radical Islam believes we will not fight for our way of life. President Ahmadinejad has already said he intends to annihilate Israel, and why do we not take him at his word? Pelosi has become the new Chamberlain. Ahmadinejad kidnapped the British soldiers to prove how weak the West was. He accomplished his goal, and he succeeded in humiliating the West.

When the Democrats take over, we will leave Iraq, but we will return. We will have to, and the blood will be 100 times what it is now. I do agree Bush has mismanaged the war, but that is because he has been trying to appease the left. If you are going to fight a war, you go and fight a war, not play tiddlywinks.

This war did need to be fought. First, no one knew that Sadaam did not have WMDs, it still has not been proven. He had eight months in which to get rid of the WMDs.. The New York Sun and other sources have reported that the number two man in Sadaam’s army has said they have been flown to Syria, (not out of the realm of possibilities.)

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."


Sadaam did pose a threat to the United States. There is no definitive proof he was involved with 9/11, but we know the goals were the same. He paid the families of suicide bombers 25,000 dollars each. If you remember Bush’s state of the Union, he said we will go after anyone who helps terrorists. This is a fight for our survival. Repeat after me, “Nuclear War."
Whereas during the cold war, the Soviets and the United States had a policy of mutually assured destruction, we cannot count on that with Radical Islam, because Radical Islam bases their beliefs on Islamic ideology. They will die for Allah.

Hmmmm, so now you are comparing the deaths of Al-Queda to people who are killed in car crashes. I suppose you can make those analogies all day, but it is a straw man’s argument. Al-Queda killed 3,000 people, because that is all it could. If the twin towers were full, you could have had 50,000 killed. Al-Queda wants to kill as many people as it can.

One death is no less valuable than another, but sometimes sacrifice is necessary to keep our freedoms in tact. You say, "Stop with the talking points and ask yourself, why do you hate our troops?" Now that was a talking point. I would suggest you ask our volunteer army if they want to retreat or if they want to finish what they started. The Democrats would be spitting on the troops like they did in Vietnam, but they hold back because of all the bad press they received.

If we retreat from Iraq now, this will only embolden the enemy, and I do not think that is what we want. Take a look at the propaganda that is disseminated throughout the Middle East. It is talking points from the Democrats. Al-Queda is just waiting for the day for us to retreat.

With regards to Angel on my sources, you can check Glencoe’s World History.

2 comments:

sims said...

First Sims says that we are no longer allowed to do the Saddam/Hitler analogy anymore, and why not?

Mainly because Saddam is now dead, and in terms of sheer lunacy with its own army, the only ones who might be compared to Hitler are Napoleon and Stalin.

I have studied WWII, and have no need to have it trumped up as analogy. You refer to Germany as a dissatisfied power in the 1930s. Quite correct. Saddam's Iraq after 1991 could not be considered even a regional power, especially given the huge American military presence in the north and south portions of the country. Saddam could not have made any legitimate military movement or action without being annihlated.

I also was confused at how you justify the Hitler/Hussein comparison by bringing up North Korea. I suppose if we had stood around for another twenty years with our thumbs in our butts, and the UN had sent no inspectors in that time, maybe, maybe Iraq might then be close to developing nukes.

You state that when the Democrats take over we will leave Iraq, but we will have to go back. Please allow me to remind you that A Republican president withdrew American troops from Iraq 15 years ago, and another Republican president decided to re-invade. Please explain how Bush 41's decision to abandon Iraq is the Democrats fault, and furthermore, help me understand why his son didn't share his foresight on the perils of occupying and destabilizing Iraq.

Bush trying to appease the left? Many thanks, sir. I have not laughed so hard in days. The so-called left won the election last November, and by your logic, the troop escalation is to appease the anti-war crowd? That is truly special.

You and so many others keep talking about this being a war for our survival, which is just so far-fetched. The extremists do not have sufficient military force to invade our country. In their wildest dreams, they could kill a thousand of us a week, and it wouldn't even affect our population growth. No one wants to see that, but again, it is important to keep in mind that THEY CANNOT DESRTROY US. They cannot turn this country into an Islamic state. Our survival is not dependent on victory in Iraq.

And thank God for that small favor, because Bush has lost that fight.

The comparison of deaths from terrorism and car crashes is not spurious. Both are largely preventable with some small measure of vigilance on our part. The point is that dead is dead, and it's a shame we don't value one another enough to make changes that might actually save lives. We worry about dying in a terrorist atttack while we are more likely to get struck by lightning, shot by a loved one, or fall down in the shower. A perspective based in reality is all I am asking.

The myth of soldiers being spat upon has been long debunked (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0430-21.htm) but it is interesting that you refer to Democrats as being the ones to let fly with the phlegm.

I would ask if soldiers would rather face spit or IEDs. I would ask if the Marines would rather wipe spit from their clothes or cockroaches from their beds at Walter Reed. And I would ask if these brave few would rather be spit upon in life, or continue to have their graves pissed upon by Republicans who do not share or value their sacrifice.

We are not safer today. This is not WWII. Wars may need to be fought in the future, but it should concern you that we will be utterly unprepared in that eventuality due to getting bogged down in a conflict which has no bearing on our survival.

The Neocons have failed this country, and left us more vulnerable than ever.

Thoughts of a genius mind said...

You don't get it. First, your idea of the myth of spitting has been disspelled is just plain fiction. I remember those days. I was of draft age back then, and I was in the lottery when they stopped it, and I remember seeing the stories and watching it happen. I remember POWs coming home and no one even greeting them. The link you sent me to also stated servicemen did not land in civilian airports, well I always saw servicemen in civilian airports. I remember the protests calling the servicemen, "baby killers" http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/protests.html

You really think the terrorists need to have sufficient military force to take over the United States. Do you really think the terrorists need to affect our population to realize their dreams.

You do not understand the nature of terrorism. If the terrorists were able to get a hold of a few nuclear dirty bombs (which they have already stated they are trying to do) detonate them in several strategic cities making 9/11 look like a tea party, your life will change forever.

Panic would set in immediately, you would see the stock market fall to unprecedented levels, unemployment would soar to levels never seen before, the dollar would fall. It would cause a world-wide depression. That is all they need to do.

And if you know your history like you say you do, you would know that Germany was a Democratic government before Hitler took over, but during an economic crisis, people look towards dictators.

I disagreed with the first Bush leaving the first time, but I understand his reasons. We had ever right to invade regardless of whether or not he had WMDs (which by the way every intelligence agency said he had).

Just as hitler violated the treaty of Versailles, Hussein was violating every provision of resolutions set out by the U.N.

In addition, Hussein wanted WMDs and if you are still under the delusion he didn't have them, you cannot be under the delusion he wanted them, and with the money he was getting from the Oil for food scandal and his other oil revenue, he would have been making every effort to acquire them.

No one knew whether or not he had them, but I don't want to wait to find out. Look at your buddy Clinton who made deals with North Korea to stop their nuclear program, and they ended up getting them anyway. We once again became "useful idiots."

My ownly problem with Bush on the war is he didn't prosecute it correctly, but at least he understands the danger. You Democrats don't even understand the danger, and if you understand history, you would think you would understand why it is necessary to go on the offense instead of always being on the defense and waiting until it is too late.

 
Republican Party Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory DeeperLeft member