Not really, no.

Hitler actually invaded several countries before we decided to do something about him, and yet we still kept quiet about the Holocaust during the war. Saddam has not invaded anyone lately, and it can be argued that he had a valid claim on Kuwait, since the border is an artificial line drawn in the sand by the Brits. It's just too facile to throw Hitler in to the argument, in the knowledge that nobody can seriously defend that one.

And as for the comments about Bexter, Brick Lane and black shirts.... ouch. Not nice at all. It seems it's all getting a bit personal on this thread again.

Mind you, I still think we should bomb Belgium...

face up to your share of the blame you filthy terrorist sympathiser - Petealiator 8/7/2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality - Theodor Adorno

Slugs, Hitler has nothing to do with my argument, appeasement against evil was my point.
Slugs, the borders of land-locked Arabic nations ARE artificial lines drawn in the sand, whoever draws them!! Should we return Austria to Germany? Should we return Belgium to being just a part of Flanders, I mean, we Brits just drew a line in the dirt after all.
Slugs, Hitler wanted to dominate the western world and eradicate communism. Saddam wants to dominate the Arabic world and eradicate the infidel.
Slugs, like it or not, it's a fact that the Black Shirts also took the anti-war stance and would have happily marched with your lot. My point being, many people take the anti-war (against Iraq) stance, but not all are taking it (especially any Muslims that marched) for honourable reasons.

My Rocksteady band...
[Link]
[Link]
IT'S NOT SKA, IT'S ROCKSTEADY!

Pete, how can you say that you're not drawing parallels with 1939 when you wrote an enormously long email imagining a hypothetical argument between Bexter and Churchill. It appears that you have taken direct quotes from Churchill's speeches for his part of the dialogue, and Hitler is mentioned several times in that and other messages.

Personally, I'd say Suez 1956 is a more realistic comparison with previous experiences... and look what happened when we went to war then. Hmmm.

In 1939, the US was then isolationist, largely uninterested in Europe. Stalinist Russia was isolated for other reasons. Britain had to take the concerns of a world empire into account. France was petrified about the growing danger on the other side of the Rhine. The threat was indeed in the very heart of Europe, and unmistakably real. Britain's very existence was at stake. No weapons inspectors were needed to see whether Hitler was building "weapons of mass destruction". Everybody knew he was doing this illegally even before he openly announced it. He then used military might and bullying tactics to force changes to state borders within Europe. The annexation of what was left of Czechoslovakia in 1939, without any pretext of uniting ethnic Germans, finally convinced the government to take a stand, at the risk of a war they did not want.

Today, there is no self-evident threat from Iraq. There is no invasion of a sovereign territory (as in 1991) to repulse. We have to take it on trust that Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction. Even if he has them, he is unlikely to use them against Britain or America - seemingly bent on war and towing Britain in its slipstream. The tanks at Heathrow are not there to fend off an attack from Saddam. But we can't destroy the invisible source of that menace, which is likely to grow, not diminish - fostered by a war for which the reason is far from plain. In 1939, the reason was all too obvious.

In 1939, the Third Reich was the most powerful and highly armed state in the world. To defeat it took six years, even though for much of that time it was fighting on several fronts at once. But although the Nazi party was destroyed, Germany itself was not: divided and occupied for half a century, its essential unity re-emerged with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Iraq, by contrast, weakened by defeat in 1991 and sanctions since, is so far from being the most powerful state in the Middle East that, even now, hostile forces control its skies and northern territories with impunity. A war with it is likely to take much less than six years but coping with the aftermath will make dealing with postwar Germany look easy.

In 1956, the US opposed war and forced Israel to withdraw from both Sinai and the Gaza Strip by threatening to cut off aid to it entirely. Eisenhower's anti-colonialism is now a distant memory. Today, the US imports half of its total private consumption of oil, and believes toppling Saddam will help it secure this. Will the people of Iraq thank Washington for their liberation? Maybe. But unless a miracle happens and the US - there is no one else - forces Israel to allow a viable Palestinian state, a new Iraq war will also feed terrorism, not starve it. As for weapons of mass destruction, this war may get rid of Saddam's. And then? War on North Korea next? Or Iran? We hear a lot at present about the limits of diplomacy and the virtues of military force. True statecraft appreciates that force has its limits, too. Hitler, the messianic leader of a rising power, never understood this; Churchill, prime minister of a waning one, did. Which role model for our neo-Churchillians now?

[I'm not ashamed to admit I "borrowed" parts of the above, should anyone want to discount my views simply because I've plagiarised someone else's words. Our Government has just done a very similar thing by copying and amending an old student thesis on terrorism to support the war, so I feel fully justified in doing so.]

face up to your share of the blame you filthy terrorist sympathiser - Petealiator 8/7/2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality - Theodor Adorno

Indeed I did... unlike Blair and his conniving chums...

face up to your share of the blame you filthy terrorist sympathiser - Petealiator 8/7/2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality - Theodor Adorno

So who is then Bexter? Who's death are you now directly blaming Britain for? Palestinians? Can't be, I don't see thousands dying there, I see terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel hitting back. Are you talking about Iraq and Kuwait? Yeah, that'll be our fault too I suppose, that Saddam slaughtered the people of Kuwait for wanting their own state. Sometimes Bexter, you sound like a spoilt silly little girl sulking in the playground.

My Rocksteady band...
[Link]
[Link]
IT'S NOT SKA, IT'S ROCKSTEADY!

Slugs, Iraq might not be the power Germany once was, but Germany never had nuclear weapons, Iraq soon will have if you and your liberal pals get your way. One nuclear warhead in the hands of a slavering rabid psychopathic f***er will kill more people in a split-second than fifty Panzer divisions could do in a year and that is what this is all about. Tony Blair does not want to go down in history as the man that condemned millions of Londoners to a terrible death at the hands of a dark-age throwback just because he didn't have the guts to act. Could you? Could you live with that on your conscience? The warnings are there but you fail to act and then, one fine sunny Sunday morning, London ceases to exist!

Yeah, I think you could, so long as no innocent Iraqis get hurt and your fluffy ideals remain in tact, I'm sure you could.

My Rocksteady band...
[Link]
[Link]
IT'S NOT SKA, IT'S ROCKSTEADY!