Poll & Hypothetical-Nazi Germany/Baathist Iraq

[Marunad]

Here's a debate that's not new. That being said, though, Nazi Germany was, theoretically, not allowed to build all sorts of weapons and military hardware after WWI under the Treaty of Versailles. We know now, of course, they did so anyway and had some secret and hidden manufacturing locations. Hitler came into power with campaign promises to revive the German economy AND promoting territorial expansion...the unification of German speaking territory and peoples under one nation. Germany, as we also know, began stepping past its borders through intimidation and direct military moves.

Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain, took the path of least resistance and the somewhat famous Munich Accord, which was billed as "Peace in Our Time" was signed with Germany which was, in part, supposed to be an agreement that saved the world from war with Nazi Germany.

Chamberlain is now frequently blamed for short sightedness that was a big factor leading to WWII.

Baathist Iraq is in a similar position that post WWI Germany faced. Economic sanctions and military restrictions. A leader who has a political goal of territorial expansion and unification/creation of a greater Pan-Arab state/empire.

Two questions....

1. If Bush backs off and the United Nations does nothing beyond the use of Inspectors and Iraq ultimately attacks a neighbor or gives nuclear weapons or chemical/biological weapons to a terrorist organization...who will be considered the modern day Chamberlain?

a. Shroeder
b. Chirac
c. Putin
d. Annan
e. Other

2. Is it worth the risk to the world to back off of direct military action against Iraq if inspection is not clearly working in the next 2 months given how severe the U.S. response will be if struck by chemical/biological or nuclear weapons?

I found none of the choices relevant except other. So I voted other.

Let me explain.

Who is "Other"?

It is the American People.

What?

Yes. If this country backs out now it'll be because the American public opinion against war is so strong that even a President with one eye and two ears towards the 2004 election has "taken the easy path".

Personally, as I have stated so many times, I am against war or any violence that kills life. Human or otherwise.

There are civilized ways to resolve issues. And they don't involve physical violence. Or if they do it's very limited in scope and focused sharply.

You see, the US military is so powerful with so many Weapons of Mass Destruction, that it doesn't need or care for any other country to back it. These are games politicians play.

But when it comes to thousands of US soldiers losing their lives, well, then it's a different cup of tea.

Then it becomes political suicide.

So, if GWB backs off now, it's because of the popular opinion against the war.

That's why I voted "Other".

GWB has put himself in a corner.

"Damned if you do and Damned if you don't"

Not for nothing he's been called Politically Naive.

I voted for Annan. The UN has it's reputation at stake here, and any lack of action will be laid firmly at their feet, IMO. Even if the US lead a war against Iraq, the UN could still be blamed for the conflict if they fail to take any decisive steps to deal with Saddam's regime.

Cheers
Mick

[cowboybooter]

I also voted for other,

Who's the loser in a war if it happens ?

Him ? Them ? Us ? or, All the above


IMHO


CBB

[Marunad]

Ouch, not a popular poll idea I see, my point was 'who would history hang as the goat'? Okies, I'll now return to my corner and stay out o' the way for a bit, heh

[Epidemic]

cbb,

I do not see where your comment applies to the question asked. You voted for other and cite who is the loser? Please explain how that applies to the question

[M_Six]

Chamberlain has been, IMO, unfairly blamed for many things beyond his control. At the time Germany was beginning to step on other countries and there was a cry for England to help out, England had no backing or support from anyone else. The US was strictly isolationist at that time and France...well, not much has changed there.

I don't think anyone could have predicted the amazing British effort, shouldered almost single-handedly by the RAF, to resist invasion. Chamberlain recognized Germany's military prowess and did everything in his power to protect what he saw as a vulnerable homeland. His flaw may have been his underestimation of the RAF's abilities and the resolve of his people to resist and withstand massive bombing raids. I believe if England had taken earlier military action, there would have been little positive effect overall and perhaps much more dire consequences. I don't believe the war could have been prevented by earlier intervention, and the extra years Chamberlain bought for England may have made the difference between survival and annihilation.

As for your question of blame? American foreign policy stretching way, way back will be to blame. This country has always been remarkably short-sighted when it comes to foreign policy and has made many colossal blunders that have led us to where we are today. Americans have always looked at the world through Red, White, and Blue tinted glasses. We always ask "What's best for us?" instead of "What's best for the World as a whole?" The world is getting smaller and smaller. We can no longer hide behind our oceans and feel safe from foreign attacks. We can no longer thumb our noses at the rest of the world and say "To hell with you all, we do what we want!" Sooner or later we'll have no more friends and the little people will gang up on the bully.

I don't like SoDamn Insane and I think the world will be much better off without him. But the US will be in a very, very sticky situation if/when we force a "regime change". There are still vastly disparate groups vying for a chance to run Iraq. Someone is going to be disappointed and that someone will become the new enemy. Iraq will never have a peaceful, freely elected government. It will always be a quagmire, just like Afghanistan. And no matter what the outcome, the US will be blamed. This is a no-win situation. The best we can hope for is preventing a massive, Iraqi-backed terrorist incident in the near term. The anger and hostility amongst the Islamic hardliners will still be there waiting for the next Bin Laden or Hussein to come along. Israel's constant invasions into Palestinian territory have done little to end the cycle of violence. Likewise, taking out the Big, Ugly One will do little to bring long-term stability to that region.

Epidemic, what's your vote?

[Epidemic]

Annan.

What countries like Iraq need is some patriotism to combine them. They need some red white and blue or equivelent glasses(green black and white???).

They need a common bond rather than their 1000 year old grudges.

[M_Six]

You've hit the nail on the head, Ep. Those 1000 year old grudges are the problem. But trying to eliminate them is like trying to change instinct. Not at all easy.