Re: What has America lost?

Jeffraham Prestonian wrote:
> "Don Swayser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>
> > > So was that non-analogy inferring some reasonable comparison of
> > > Iraq's threat to ANY nation in 2003 to the Axis powers' threats to
> > > Europe and beyond during WWII. I forgive you.
> > >
> > Only morons fail to see relevance. Human nature doesn't change. That's
> > been proven over many centuries of recorded history. Many of the facts
> > of the dictatorships of the twentieth century can also be compared to
> > Napoleon in the eighteenth century, the Czars of the seventeenth century
> >  the Hapsburgs of the fifteenth and sixteenth century, the
> > Plantagenennts of the fourteenth, the Huns, Ostrogoths, Visgoths,
> > Vandals, Angles, Saxons of the dark ages and Rome before that. The
> > details differ, not the motives. Strong peoples and leaders want what
> > others have and take it by force. How was Hussein any different? He
> > wanted the oil of Iran and Kuwait and tried to take it by force. How is
> > this different than Hitlers Libenstraum? Japans Greater East
> > Co-prosperity Sphere? Napoleons conquests? And in the last couple
> > centuries totalitarians have felt compelled to find resaons for their
> > aggression. Hitler used oppressed German minorities in Czechoslovakia
> > and Poland. Napoleon was feeing countires of oppressive monarchies.
> > Japan was freeing Asians from Western influence. Hussein used attampted
> > assassinations supposedly sponsored by Iran and Slant drilling into
> > Iraqi oilfields by Kuwait. A child could see through those rationals. No
> > one with an even mediocre intelligence and scant knowledge of history
> > sees right through them, yet you can't. Kinda sad.
>
>
> What's sadder still is your indistinction between the
> Iraq of August, 1990 and the Iraq of March, 2003.
> Sanctions that worked, shipments intercepted, no-fly
> zones enforced, etc.
Sure I recognize the difference. Hussein found he couldn't succeed by 
force and changed to intimidation. Why do you think he was building M & 
IRBM's and importing solid missile fuel components from China. Look, 
you're just like Neville Chamberlain, Edward Wood and Edouard Daladier 
back in the 1930's. There were many others like them. Many kind hearted 
historians put their attitude down as principaled liberal pacifism. I 
don't. I place it squarely in the coward catagory. It was cowardice 
which led them to treacherously betray a small country which needed 
their help. And I find it incredible that with those lessons behind us 
there are still some people like you so afraid of such a monster that 
rapes, tortures, mutilates and kills children in his own society will 
still make others attempt to feel that this monster should not have been 
removed by any means necessary.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to the readers of thos thread why you 
still support a monster like Saddam Hussein. And please spare us the "I 
don't support him, but this country shouldn't have removed him by war. 
There is no half way with a monster like that. So, why do you support him?



--
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an 
equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
Carl Schurz (1829-1906)