T Nation

US should not attack Iraq

Wherever you live, don’t ever EVER vote. Your reasoning is so faulty and misguided that I am having trouble replying calmly.

President Bush=Adolf Hitler? That is so off base that I am disgusted. DO YOU KNOW A THING ABOUT WORLD WAR II AND THE HOLOCAUST? Please spend at least 72 straight hours reading about these events before you respond. Hitler set out to conquer the world, and rounded up well over 6 million civilians and systematically MURDERED them, not because they posed a threat to civilization, not even for monetary gain, but simply for CRAZY EVIL motives. The Nazis were only stopped at great cost by the rest of the world. How can you possibly say that what Bush is doing is anything like that? What have we conquered? What are we going to conquer? Do you think success in Iraq will lead us to get trigger happy and annex Canada or France or even Iraq itself? Where are the millions of Muslims being rounded up and murdered, just because we don’t like them? How can you seriously connect Dubya to Hitler?

The argument that our only motivation is oil prices is stupid beyond belief – where have you been? Certainly not America. Have you heard a public outcry in the last decade about oil prices? No, there hasn’t been one. Has anything happened in, oh, say, the last year or so that would motivate the US to attack radical violent Muslims that have threatened to destroy the United States? Hmmmmmm?

Please compare this to WWII. Oh, that’s right: the Sudetenland was publicly threatening Germany. Poland and Russia and Norway and Crete and Greece and Egypt and Jordan and France and Belgium and the Netherlands and Luxembourg and England and Czechoslovakia and Serbia and Bulgaria and Romania and all of North Africa and Ethiopia and the United States had the means and will to gas, nuke, and bomb German cities, right? That’s what caused Hitler to attack, right?

Did you follow the thread where the gentleman from Afghanistan was on here a few months ago? Look it up. Tell me that that is how the Poles or the French would have talked about Hitler in 1942, cretin.

The idea that a war against Iraq is a totally unfounded war of aggression is a joke. Besides the decade of threats and resolutions issued by the UN, please look up some of the harsh rhetoric issued by the Canadians, the Germans, the French, and other important European leaders following the ouster of weapons inspectors in 1998 by Hussein. “Military action” and other such harsh remedies were prescribed, but the US President in 1998 was not about to make any real decisions like that. Now, for some reason, the same leaders have turned a 180, even though the situation on the ground has undoubtedly only gotten worse, because they know that current president is serious, and their tough talk might actually mean that they have make some tough decisions. It’s why a lot of Americans have small faith in the UN, because we feel like any kind of punitive penalties or threats levied against defiant, violent nations by the UN will only be enforced by American troops. Come on, if the UN War Crimes tribunal were to indict someone like Saddam Hussein for his use of gas against the Kurds and the Iranians and the murder of POWs, do you think anything would come of it unless the US decided to go in and get him? Would the UN do it? Would another member nation do it? I believe that the UN is a wonderful idea, and that eventually it will be a great force for good in the world, but ONLY if its other members are willing to back up their tough rhetoric when neccessary.

Please give some detailed, specific points comparing Hitler and Dubya and I will explain why you are so incorrect that you should be mortified, if you are willing to listen. If the US was invading countries as you say, “because we can”, a whole lot of people would be singing our national anthem against their will.