Thursday, September 20, 2007

GW's Answer for "Movement.Org"

The Amendment was to commend 'every' man and woman serving in Iraq, including Gen Petraeus, and it stated so in the amendment. The democrats didn't vote against the General, they voted against every person in the military..... (commenter at CQ)

Posted by docjim505 September 19, 2007 6:30 PM

Here are the problems with comparing Saddam / Iraq to World War II:

1. We know how World War II turned out: we won. What is the saying? "Victory has a thousand fathers, while defeat is an orphan." Since World War II turned out well for us, EVERYBODY thinks of it as "a good war". We don't know yet how Iraq will turn out; if the libs have their way, it'll be the worst US disaster since Vietnam (another war they scuttled).

2. Evidence of Hitler's evil is well-documented and widely known. He's been the ultimate villain in American minds since 1945, the undisputed Worst Man in History.* Saddam was an amateur compared to him, and there are no undisputed tallies of just how many people he DID murder.**

3. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20 / 20. Looking back at 1919 or 1925 or 1933 or 1935 or 1938, it's obvious that Hitler was up to no good and had to be stopped. We don't have that sort of hindsight with regard to Saddam.

So a few questions to starfleet_dude and the rest of you who stoutly maintain that Saddam was not a threat, that he was contained, that we were just a bunch of ol' meanies when we picked on him:

How many nazis were there in Germany in 1929, i.e. ten years before the German invasion of Poland? Did anybody but the most hysterical alarmist think that Germany, still bloody and battered from its defeat just ten years before, was REALLY a threat to world peace? After all, there were the various terms of the Versaille Treaty to ensure that Germany had only a small, defensive army. Germany was contained, right? And who was afraid of those doofuses in the brown shirts? Why would anybody think that Germans would be crazy enough to follow a gang of losers like them?

How big a threat did Japan pose to the United States in 1931, ten years before the attack on Pearl Harbor? Anybody know just how puny Japan's industrial base was compared to ours, even counting the effects of the Depression? What was the population of Japan relative to the United States? Why would anybody but the worst alarmist in the Navy Department EVER think that Japan would be a major threat to the United States? And who would ever think that the Japanese would be crazy enough to pick a fight with a country so much larger and stronger than they were?

Since libs doubtless miss the point, let me be explicit: the world is not static. The world is not predictable. The nation that is your friend today may be your enemy tomorrow. The nation that doesn't seem a threat today may kick your ass a year from now. Claims that Saddam was "contained" are hollow as we simply don't know (and, happily, will never have to find out) what he and Iraq might have done five or ten years from now. Would the sanctions regime have held together? Almost certainly not. Would Saddam have tried to get more WMD, including nukes? A safe bet that he would. Would the UN have stopped him? Don't make me laugh!

When you say that "Saddam wasn't a threat to the United States in 2002", remember that Nazi Germany wasn't a threat to us in 1932... but we were in a desperate war with them just ten years later.

(*) I've often mused about the fact that Hitler wins the title while Stalin finishes a distant third behind Schickelgruber and George Bush (or whoever the libs decide to hate on a given day). Stalin and his goons murdered far more people that the nazi regime did, yet many on the left still have fond regard for Uncle Joe and the USSR. I guess Stalin just had better PR (Walter Duranty, anyone?).

(**) Libs often sneer that more people have died in Iraq as a result of our liberation than were murdered by Saddam. Question: how many people did Hitler murder, and how many died as a result of the "Great Crusade" to liberate Europe from his odious clutches? Was World War II therefore not worth it?.............

Discovered in Captain's Quarters. Thrusday, Sept 20th, 2007

(Special thanks to docjim for his deliberate articulation)

Zawahiri is nothing but a "Tokyo Rose" by any other name. Baghdad Bob attempted to paint a similar picture as Saddam's tenure was eliminated. Bin Laden is said to be preparing to declare war on Pakistan, which leads some to think his "welcome mat" may have worn out.

At home, the Democratic Party’s latest effort to damage/sabotage surge success in Iraq fails in Senate. Webb’s attempt to use his military prowess formulating a troop deployment strategy that he had to know would wreck havoc on command and control in the theater got "shot down" for the second time.

What the "defeatocrats" don't seem to come to grips with is that following the meter-maids in the mainstream media that promote defeat and surrender for the advancement of a political agenda is not what this nation will stand for. When our brave soldiers are pounding our enemies on all fronts and propaganda machine of Al-Qaeda shows it's desperation by finding "new" countries to declare war against, many will wonder how far we could have advanced in the war on terrorism if this nation were united in victory instead of betraying a general who has givin his life to protect this nation from harm............Rovin

No comments: