Give Peace a Chance

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
peter_suciu
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 29 Nov 2002 16:49
Location: New York City

Post by peter_suciu » 05 Feb 2003 16:42

I would argue the other point is that Kullman makes is that some factions in both situations are so against war that they'll let the other side do as it pleases. Hitler officially renounced the treaty, etc., but Germany had been secretly re-arming, training and plotting since before the Nazis took power.

No, the situations are not the same. But if the world, including the League of Nations, tried to use the same tactics against Germany as what is being used against Iraq Hitler might have said, "go ahead and attack me." The military might have removed that madman...we don't know. But what I think we do know is that no one is going to remove Hussain and he has pretty much said, "go ahead and attack me."

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 05 Feb 2003 16:58

I would argue the other point is that Kullman makes is that some factions in both situations are so against war that they'll let the other side do as it pleases.
So? The same thing can be said about US, British and French attitudes to earlier events in Rwanda, Bosnia, Angola and other places. The analogy works just as well there. Actually though that is not even true - if the last Gulf War is any indication there are in fact limits to what France f.e. will accept from Iraq without going to war.

All it really says is that countries are generally reluctant to go to war with other countries if they can avoid it, but that they can't or shouldn't always avoid it. The problem is of course, at which point should they no longer try to avoid it. Unsurprisingly, countries do not neccessarily agree on this. What does it really tell you that there has been one previous case where some countries tried to avoid it for too long, under circumstances that were different in every significant aspect? You could just as easily find cases where some countries probably didn't avoid it for long enough, and they would be just as uninstructive. Bottom line - history provides us with no answers to whether it is right or wrong, wise or unwise, to attack Iraq. There's no getting around analysis of the actual situation to find the answer to those questions.


cheers

Kullman
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 17:59
Location: Lansing, MI

No answers

Post by Kullman » 07 Feb 2003 22:05

If history dosn't provide any answers, then why bother with it at all. You're such a deconstructionalist.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 08 Feb 2003 20:03

Comparing todays Iraq to 30s Germany is a little overstatement.

Iraq is poor 3rd world country (why ?? because we have starved them for the last decade !!) that is not even nearly as dangerous as Germany was in 1939 - a major European military power.

Get serious: Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons. They have maybe few artillery shells in stach somewhere that contain some poorly purified nerve agent, or some long time a go received biological germs that could be weaponized and delivered by country that has plenty of money and expertice to do that - which Iraq doesn't have - what a grave danger to free world !! - all this fuzz makes me sick. But, i guess it doesn't matter because they are only "sand-niggers", not humans, and they have oil that we want to keep our SUVs running (sorry about such foul language, but it is the only way to get this point through - let it be clear - not my opinion).

United States is always bragging about quality of their intelligence services and special forces - well, kill Saddam then !! - i think no-one would oppose that. I know it is difficult, but if that is not possible it is still not a reason to attack the poor people of Irak and kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have nothing to do with this "war against terrorism". We all know what US is planning - massive air strikes against helpless civilians and infrastructure of Iraq. Only innocent would suffer in coming war.

I agree that Iraq is long-term potential danger as long as Saddam is in power, but there is no immediate danger - and because of that no reason to attack Iraq. You don't kill flies using sledge hammer, do you ?? To say it bluntly - me and and many, many other people outside the influence of "homeland mind security" think that Dubya is just trying to show-off to his dad that he is a "strong leader".


Regards, Mark V

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 09 Feb 2003 13:41

If history dosn't provide any answers, then why bother with it at all. You're such a deconstructionalist.
Well, here I am on a perfectly normal lazy sunday, minding my own business, logging on to check if anything's up - and I find I have been called a deconstructionalist. Now my whole day's ruined.

Joke aside, I am no deconstructionalist and as for the answers of history, I would draw your attention to this:
Firstly, I believe the lessons of history are general, not specific. History can teach us much about how the world fundamentally works, but it is unlikely to provide any direct guidance to future action
So there are answers, but not answers to questions like "Is it a good idea to invade Iraq?", which really shouldn't be much of a surprise.


cheers

User avatar
Zachary
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 21:55
Location: Sunshine State, USA

Post by Zachary » 09 Feb 2003 23:55

Hmmmm that first idea seems awfully familier!

Return to “What if”