even more current - UBL himself says that Clinton's humilitating retreat from Mogadishu, after black hawk down, further emboldened AQ.
and the retreat also emboldened Sadaam to break the UN sanctions & shoot at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone.
Posted by: OhioOrrin at May 10, 2007 07:22 AM
Nice story.
And what does it have to do with invading and occupying a random Arab country that wasn't involved in attacking the US, and was in fact an enemy of the ones who did?
So on the one hand you have France vs invading Germans, who had built the most fiercesome army in the world. On the other, you have the US vs a tin pot dictator on the other side of the world who posed no credible threat to the US. hmmm, I don't see the analogy.
Oh yeah - I just don't "get" it.
Posted by: Aarontime at May 10, 2007 08:28 AM
Dipstick Aaron, no, you don't get it. Substitute Islamists for Germans in the above and you might start to get a clue to the overall point being made... if we don't kill them first they will come for us where we live.
Posted by: WB at May 10, 2007 08:35 AM
Arrontime, you're right you dont get it.
Go do a little research on how great of a guy Saddamn was. How many times he defied the international community. How many hundreds of thousands of people he killed. The Clinton Admin said this in 1998:
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
Regardless if he had a WMD program or not, he wouldnt let inspectors in. We had a pile of evidence from 99% of the intel agencies around the world.
Honestly though that is a debate for another day. Ya see, my liberal friend, we ARE in Iraq right now. Whether we agree it was justified is mute. I think it was, you dont. Moving on.
We are in Iraq now. You have to forget all the propaganda you have been exposed too. You have to step back and look at the consequences if we leave too soon. If the Iraq war looks bad now, lets pull out, then it will get 100x worse. Iran, alqueda, sunni, shiite, kurds, turks, batthists. It will be a huge a mess. Terrorists blood lust for americans wont go away either.
Forget about how much you hate Bush. Make an informed decision.
Posted by: jbiccum at May 10, 2007 08:43 AM
jbiccum -
uh, yeah, we all get that Saddam was a really really nasty dictator, a sadistic serial human rights abuser who had the blood of thousands on his hands. We get it - Saddam was horrible guy. (But we also get that there are lots of terrible dictators in teh world.)
Nobody said Saddam was a "Great guy". You're busy flailing against straw men again - a favorite past time of wingnuts these days.
All of Saddam's horrible actions make you wonder why future Bushies in the Reagan admin were so chummy with him. After all, the worst of his abuses occured in the late 80's - that was when he used gas on the Kurds. At the time of the gassing, the entire civilized world was up in arms about it - all except the US, which looked the other way and quietly lobbied against punitive actions against Saddam, while continuing to meet with him, do business with him, and funnel intel to him.
You Bushbots have only ever spat ridicule at the idea of human rights - yet in the case of Iraq you harp on and on about the gassing of the Kurds, which happened 20 years ago, and the retribution against the Shi'a, which happend 15 years ago. Why didn't you care about any of this at the time it happened? What is this? - a delayed compassion reaction?
In any case, the analogy to France/Germany is still a stupid one.
Posted by: Aarontime at May 10, 2007 09:05 AM
Funny thing about the World War II analogy that you guys like so much... after Hitler was deposed, FDR went back to congress in order to reauthorize the use of force in the occupation of Germany following the end of the war... it was called the Marshall Plan...
You think that Bush would sign a different authorization for Iraq? If not, then perhaps you should try to find a new analogy...
Posted by: Rana Quijotesca at May 10, 2007 11:28 AM
67 Years Ago TodayThe price of appeasement and wishful thinking started to be paid by the French:
You never mention who did the ‘appeasing’ in the run up to WWII: it were Conservatives and other right-wing, some of them fascist, parties in Europe.
Neville Chamberlain in Britain was a Conservative. France was led by a weak conservative president: Lebrun. Édouard Daladier was Prime Minister of France before the war for the Popular Front, a coalition of left-wing parties established to confront the growth of numerous fascist parties in France.
France was sharply divided between left- and right-wing parties and that made Daladier a vulnerable and weak Prime Minister. He was opposed to the Munich Agreement with Hitler but without the support of Britain and without overwhelming support at home, he was unable to wage war with Germany over Sudetenland and was forced to sign the Agreement. Daladier did not sign the additional resolution determining to resolve all future disputes with Germany through peaceful means. Only Chamberlain did.
When Chamberlain returned from Munich, he hailed that resolution as a victory, not the Munich Agreement itself. When Daladier returned from Munich, he was expecting a hostile crowd, however he was acclaimed by conservatives and other Frenchmen who were weary of another costly war in two decades. He then told his aid, Alexis Léger: "Ah, les cons (the fools)!".
Posted by: Willem van Oranje at May 10, 2007 11:56 AM
Arrontime just doesn't get it? Comparing the war in Iraq to the war against Nazi Germany? The comparison is so absolutely ridiculous there is no need to respond to this nonsense.
Posted by: kblack77 at May 10, 2007 05:37 PM
...and was in fact an enemy of the ones who did?
Airheadtime, you can repeat the big lie forever, and you only look sillier every time you do it. How'd you turn out so stupid? Your parents weren't this stupid, were they? Because, if they were, they would've been too stupid to produce you. My guess is too many blows to the head...
Posted by: keefer at May 10, 2007 05:44 PM
The comparison is so absolutely ridiculous there is no need to respond to this nonsense.
This, my friends, is Dr. Rerun, making an excuse for being too stupid to respond. Either that, or he's too busy with Handora right now...
Posted by: keefer at May 10, 2007 05:57 PM
Willem,
Your premise falls apart when you consider that the left parties in France and Britain were even more spineless than the conservative parties...on the left, only a few shining lights like Blum saw clearly what had to be done (and, of course, on the right it was only a few shining lights like Churchill). Meanwhile, the far left was just as despicable on the subject as the far right...they didn't get into the fighting Nazism thing until Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.
The whole world was craven - and thus the whole world paid the price. And the very worst thing about is that after all that blood and sacrifice, the job was only half finished...Hitler was dead, but Stalin (who was instrumental in allowing Hitler to unleash war) still ruled.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 11, 2007 03:47 AM
Rana,
FDR was three years dead when the Marshall Plan was enacted.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 11, 2007 03:50 AM
I love how Britain and France were spineless where was America at this time? When did you enter the war?
The British public did not want another war they had seen the suffering and death of the first. Britain was not ready for another war. The french lost 50-80 % of their men of fighting age in the first world war and their infrastructure was destroyed. How can you expect them to wage war withut trying other avenues first? Sure in hindsight, with the Holocaust, appeasment was not perhaps the best idea but they did what they thought was right at the time.
Posted by: weefee at May 11, 2007 04:03 AM
where was America at this time? When did you enter the war?
Posted by: weefee at May 11, 2007 04:03 AM
You should not ask this question, weefee, as most Americans want to forget they were late in arriving. In their mind, they were the first in, with guns blazing, vanquishing the evil forces, the sole liberator and savior of the free world.
The John Wayne version will always be much more palatable than the truth.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 11, 2007 07:21 PM
Mark,
My premisse falls apart? By what? You can't even manage to show one historic fact supporting your premisse that ‘that the left parties in France and Britain were even more spineless than the conservative parties’ or that ‘the far left was just as despicable on the subject as the far right’
And the ‘far left’ started fighting fascism in 1936! Many supported and even personally fought with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War against the Nationalists of Generalísimo Franco. Franco was supported and aided by conservatives and right wing parties all over Europe, for instance the Royal Navy of (conservative) Britain provided material support for Franco. Most notably, Germany and Italy supported and aided the military coup by Generalísimo Franco. Léon Blum of France was forced to adopt a policy of neutrality rather than assist the Spanish Republicans, for fear of splitting his alliance with the centrist Radicals. The impossible dilemma caused by this issue led Blum to resign in June 1937.
After Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, the United Kingdom and France gave Germany two days to withdraw from Poland. Once the deadline passed on September 3, 1939 the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Nepal declared war on Germany ...
The US entered the war December 1941, TWO years and three months after the war started.
Posted by: Willem van Oranje at May 11, 2007 11:12 PM
even more current - UBL himself says that Clinton's humilitating retreat from Mogadishu, after black hawk down, further emboldened AQ.
and the retreat also emboldened Sadaam to break the UN sanctions & shoot at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone.
Nice story.
And what does it have to do with invading and occupying a random Arab country that wasn't involved in attacking the US, and was in fact an enemy of the ones who did?
So on the one hand you have France vs invading Germans, who had built the most fiercesome army in the world. On the other, you have the US vs a tin pot dictator on the other side of the world who posed no credible threat to the US. hmmm, I don't see the analogy.
Oh yeah - I just don't "get" it.
Dipstick Aaron, no, you don't get it. Substitute Islamists for Germans in the above and you might start to get a clue to the overall point being made... if we don't kill them first they will come for us where we live.
Arrontime, you're right you dont get it.
Go do a little research on how great of a guy Saddamn was. How many times he defied the international community. How many hundreds of thousands of people he killed. The Clinton Admin said this in 1998:
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
Regardless if he had a WMD program or not, he wouldnt let inspectors in. We had a pile of evidence from 99% of the intel agencies around the world.
Honestly though that is a debate for another day. Ya see, my liberal friend, we ARE in Iraq right now. Whether we agree it was justified is mute. I think it was, you dont. Moving on.
We are in Iraq now. You have to forget all the propaganda you have been exposed too. You have to step back and look at the consequences if we leave too soon. If the Iraq war looks bad now, lets pull out, then it will get 100x worse. Iran, alqueda, sunni, shiite, kurds, turks, batthists. It will be a huge a mess. Terrorists blood lust for americans wont go away either.
Forget about how much you hate Bush. Make an informed decision.
jbiccum -
uh, yeah, we all get that Saddam was a really really nasty dictator, a sadistic serial human rights abuser who had the blood of thousands on his hands. We get it - Saddam was horrible guy. (But we also get that there are lots of terrible dictators in teh world.)
Nobody said Saddam was a "Great guy". You're busy flailing against straw men again - a favorite past time of wingnuts these days.
All of Saddam's horrible actions make you wonder why future Bushies in the Reagan admin were so chummy with him. After all, the worst of his abuses occured in the late 80's - that was when he used gas on the Kurds. At the time of the gassing, the entire civilized world was up in arms about it - all except the US, which looked the other way and quietly lobbied against punitive actions against Saddam, while continuing to meet with him, do business with him, and funnel intel to him.
You Bushbots have only ever spat ridicule at the idea of human rights - yet in the case of Iraq you harp on and on about the gassing of the Kurds, which happened 20 years ago, and the retribution against the Shi'a, which happend 15 years ago. Why didn't you care about any of this at the time it happened? What is this? - a delayed compassion reaction?
In any case, the analogy to France/Germany is still a stupid one.
Funny thing about the World War II analogy that you guys like so much... after Hitler was deposed, FDR went back to congress in order to reauthorize the use of force in the occupation of Germany following the end of the war... it was called the Marshall Plan...
You think that Bush would sign a different authorization for Iraq? If not, then perhaps you should try to find a new analogy...
You never mention who did the ‘appeasing’ in the run up to WWII: it were Conservatives and other right-wing, some of them fascist, parties in Europe.
Neville Chamberlain in Britain was a Conservative. France was led by a weak conservative president: Lebrun. Édouard Daladier was Prime Minister of France before the war for the Popular Front, a coalition of left-wing parties established to confront the growth of numerous fascist parties in France.
France was sharply divided between left- and right-wing parties and that made Daladier a vulnerable and weak Prime Minister. He was opposed to the Munich Agreement with Hitler but without the support of Britain and without overwhelming support at home, he was unable to wage war with Germany over Sudetenland and was forced to sign the Agreement. Daladier did not sign the additional resolution determining to resolve all future disputes with Germany through peaceful means. Only Chamberlain did.
When Chamberlain returned from Munich, he hailed that resolution as a victory, not the Munich Agreement itself. When Daladier returned from Munich, he was expecting a hostile crowd, however he was acclaimed by conservatives and other Frenchmen who were weary of another costly war in two decades. He then told his aid, Alexis Léger: "Ah, les cons (the fools)!".
Arrontime just doesn't get it? Comparing the war in Iraq to the war against Nazi Germany? The comparison is so absolutely ridiculous there is no need to respond to this nonsense.
...and was in fact an enemy of the ones who did?
Airheadtime, you can repeat the big lie forever, and you only look sillier every time you do it. How'd you turn out so stupid? Your parents weren't this stupid, were they? Because, if they were, they would've been too stupid to produce you. My guess is too many blows to the head...
The comparison is so absolutely ridiculous there is no need to respond to this nonsense.
This, my friends, is Dr. Rerun, making an excuse for being too stupid to respond. Either that, or he's too busy with Handora right now...
Willem,
Your premise falls apart when you consider that the left parties in France and Britain were even more spineless than the conservative parties...on the left, only a few shining lights like Blum saw clearly what had to be done (and, of course, on the right it was only a few shining lights like Churchill). Meanwhile, the far left was just as despicable on the subject as the far right...they didn't get into the fighting Nazism thing until Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.
The whole world was craven - and thus the whole world paid the price. And the very worst thing about is that after all that blood and sacrifice, the job was only half finished...Hitler was dead, but Stalin (who was instrumental in allowing Hitler to unleash war) still ruled.
Rana,
FDR was three years dead when the Marshall Plan was enacted.
I love how Britain and France were spineless where was America at this time? When did you enter the war?
The British public did not want another war they had seen the suffering and death of the first. Britain was not ready for another war. The french lost 50-80 % of their men of fighting age in the first world war and their infrastructure was destroyed. How can you expect them to wage war withut trying other avenues first? Sure in hindsight, with the Holocaust, appeasment was not perhaps the best idea but they did what they thought was right at the time.
where was America at this time? When did you enter the war?
Posted by: weefee at May 11, 2007 04:03 AM
You should not ask this question, weefee, as most Americans want to forget they were late in arriving. In their mind, they were the first in, with guns blazing, vanquishing the evil forces, the sole liberator and savior of the free world.
The John Wayne version will always be much more palatable than the truth.
Mark,
My premisse falls apart? By what? You can't even manage to show one historic fact supporting your premisse that ‘that the left parties in France and Britain were even more spineless than the conservative parties’ or that ‘the far left was just as despicable on the subject as the far right’
And the ‘far left’ started fighting fascism in 1936! Many supported and even personally fought with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War against the Nationalists of Generalísimo Franco. Franco was supported and aided by conservatives and right wing parties all over Europe, for instance the Royal Navy of (conservative) Britain provided material support for Franco. Most notably, Germany and Italy supported and aided the military coup by Generalísimo Franco. Léon Blum of France was forced to adopt a policy of neutrality rather than assist the Spanish Republicans, for fear of splitting his alliance with the centrist Radicals. The impossible dilemma caused by this issue led Blum to resign in June 1937.
After Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, the United Kingdom and France gave Germany two days to withdraw from Poland. Once the deadline passed on September 3, 1939 the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Nepal declared war on Germany ...
The US entered the war December 1941, TWO years and three months after the war started.