The Endless Cycle of History

[emprworm]

Repeat, after repeat, after repeat.

Neville Chamberlain

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

September 1938

after signing the Munich Pact with Hitler

"We, the German F

[nemafakei]

Appeasement was indeed the wrong way to go. Direct containment would have been far better.

[Edric O]

You bring up a good point, Emprworm - we should never try to appease Bush. After all, look what happened the last time we bowed before the demands of someone like him...

[emprworm]

You bring up a good point, Emprworm - we should never try to appease Bush. After all, look what happened the last time we bowed before the demands of someone like him...

you have given into your hate.

i hope you can find a way out, lest you free-fall beyond escape

[Acriku]

Are you saying we are doing this again somehow, or that this is what happened right before WWII, in which Hitler broke the treaty?

[Edric O]

What Emprworm is saying is that Saddam is like Hitler, so we should not make any kind of peace with him... no comment. ::)

What I am saying is that Bush is far more similar to Hitler than Saddam ever was. Especially power-wise. Saddam is powerless. Bush rules the world. Who do you think is more dangerous?

[Acriku]

Well then again, Hitler didn't have any power before he used his charm and taking advantage of the situation to rise up in power. Maybe Saddam is a little Hitler :D

[TMA_1]

"you have given into your hate."

No I havent! *slings out lightsaber and starts slashing around in anger* hehehe

You have to understand. A couple decades before world war 2, the british lost hundreds of thousands of men. They didnt want another world war one. You dont think in the past. Only in the now. This is why you would make a perfect politician. You think like a little kid. That is why ordos agrees with you, because secretly he must love beurocratic big government.

Now days you have two sides. both on extremes. They both though fail to be understanding of the past. If you cant be understanding of the past you will fail to understand the past. They didnt want to go to war! who could freakin blame em? I know I wouldnt. Do you know what happens in battle? None of us really do. None of us knows what the hell of war is like. We just like to feel like major military genius'. grow up, geesh.

[GhostHunter]

What Emprworm is saying is that Saddam is like Hitler, so we should not make any kind of peace with him... no comment. ::)

What I am saying is that Bush is far more similar to Hitler than Saddam ever was. Especially power-wise. Saddam is powerless. Bush rules the world. Who do you think is more dangerous?

Edric really, Bush does not rule the world..

[emprworm]

my point is that we had peace-freaks who would sacrifice anything and everything- including morality- in the name of Peace. Chamberlain said everything about Hitler that many people say of Sadaam today. They want to appease him. They want to bend to his will. They talk of peace, while allowing the dictator to build up his stockpile and continue torturing his own people.

War is necessary at times, and to a peace freak, this will never be a true statement. The peace freaks during the German hollocaust learned the hardway. But their offspring has not. Yet if they get their way, they will.

[TMA_1]

once you have been in battle and seen people's heads gorded out by bullets and canon rounds, I will respect your opinion. till then you are a loudmouth.

[emprworm]

history is a proven fact. the "wisdom" of appeasing a dictator is already an established 20th century fact of history.

now repeating

[SurlyPIG]

A good comparison. The only real difference I can think of is that Hussein will be lucky to get beyond the status quo. I doubt he'd be able to muster as many people as Hitler, let alone as much military power.

[emprworm]

perhaps....but he seems to have mustered a LOT of people nontheless....fortunately not their official governments (except for Germany and France, but you'd think they would have learned their lesson)

[maxl]

my point is that we had peace-freaks who would sacrifice anything and everything- including morality- in the name of Peace. Chamberlain said everything about Hitler that many people say of Sadaam today. They want to appease him. They want to bend to his will. They talk of peace, while allowing the dictator to build up his stockpile and continue torturing his own people.

War is necessary at times, and to a peace freak, this will never be a true statement. The peace freaks during the German hollocaust learned the hardway. But their offspring has not. Yet if they get their way, they will.

I'm a peace-freak, but I'd prefer if you called me a pacifist. I am not sacrificing anything. But I think you don't know, what war means to the men and women living in the Iraq. War is even worse than a dictatorship and there must be another way then going to war against Iraq.

Are there really wars, which are necessary? I can't remember of only ONE.

[emprworm]

But I think you don't know, what war means to the men and women living in the Iraq.

And I think you don't know what freedom means to the men and women living in Iraq.

[maxl]

They won't be free, if you just fight another war.

Best case: There will be a new dictator, who won't be better than Saddam (maybe a little bit)... maybe he'll like USA a little bit more... that's all.

Were there any wars, which were necessary?

[emprworm]

how do you know there will be another dictator?

this is not the case in afganistan.

[maxl]

This case is more like the one in Afghanistan... or at least more than Saddam is a new Hitler. ;)

And now tell me, which war was necessary!

[emprworm]

And now tell me, which war was necessary!

if you are referring to WWII and the war in afghanistan:

Both.

if you doubt that, go ask some of the women and children in Afghanistan that can now go to school and not fear public stoning and execution.

[maxl]

WW2 was NOT necessary. It was necessary that the allies defended themselves, but it wasn't necessary that Hitler attacked so many countries and killed lots of people.

In a way it was our duty to help the people to free themselves... but we ought to help the people to be really free... not to suffer from a new dictator. Women lose their rights already and they won't be free anymore in just 2 or 3 years, because we aren't able to help a country by killing a dictator... there will be another one.

[emprworm]

we shall see.

[number6]

Unfortunately war has been and will continue to be necessary for at least the foreseeable future. Why do you think countries train a military? To protect themselves from attack and to impose their will abroad. Is war an ideal solution to problems? No, of course not. We don't live in an ideal world where right and wrong are easily identified. If everyone played by the rules and treated all people with diginity and respect, then we might not need wars. The problem is there are many evil people in this world who don't care what the rules are and will take advantage of people. I personally don't like the idea of war if a peaceful solution seems likely or attainable. A war with Iraq is inevitable. Sooner or later Sadaam is going to flex his muscles, especially if he gets nuclear capability, and the whole world will be at risk then. Right now the U.S. is the main target of the terrorists. What happens if we let Iraq do as it pleases in developing weapons of mass destruction? It will first try to destroy the U.S. and if it succeeds will become the next superpower in the world demanding other nations to submit to its will. The U.S. tries to be fair with the rest of the world, but it is hard to please everyone. Currently the rest of the world is somewhat envious of the power the U.S. has. I can understand that, but at one time or another a lot of these same countries held dominion over a good portion of the Earth and there was little that could be done about it. One day in the future the U.S. may not be the super power that it is, but for now it is the U.S. that has a major say in how the world does business. I think the current administration in the U.S. has made some mistakes currently, but the case for military action against Iraq is not one of them. Does anyone remember what happened on 9/11. I do. I still think about all those innocent people being killed for no reason other than to scare the people of the U.S. into submission. The problem with that was we Americans do not give up so easily. We are scared and that fear has made us look carefully at our friends and our enemies. Right now are immediate threat is the Iraqi governement and we will do what it takes to defend our right to live our lives without fear of terrorist attacks again. We are already fighting a war and Iraq has been made a part of it by helping promote terrorists. A lot of the member nations of the U.N. are not in immediate danger so of course they prefer delay.

[emprworm]

but at one time or another a lot of these same countries held dominion over a good portion of the Earth and there was little that could be done about it.

interesting point. never considered that

[Dante]

Yabba yabba yabba, and yet another thread begins about a much-discussed topic with no real answer. NO ANSWER. Just opinions. Why bother? History doesn't repeat itself, you do.