Good article about the appeasement of Saddam (warning: right winged)

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by jrthebassguy, Oct 21, 2002.

  1. I found this article on and I thought it was a pretty good read. I would post this in the Iraq thread but I think this deserves a thread on its own. If a mod disagrees, he can merge them if he so wishes.

    Britain Learned...Why Hasn't the Rest of Europe?
    Those who do not learn from history...
    by Frederic Gutierrez

    Neville Chamberlain didn't have the benefit of hindsight when he "negotiated" a peaceful settlement to the Sudetenland problem with Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain, as the Prime Minister, was doing what he felt was right: doing everything in his power to avoid another destructive war in Europe. To his mind "doing everything" meant following a policy of appeasement and non-confrontation, a policy of political spinelessness which subsequent events demonstrated was shortsighted and poorly planned.

    Regardless of what history has shown us, the Munich agreement was a domestic political victory for Chamberlain. The British did not want another war, and for that they cannot be faulted. Unfortunately, Adolf Hitler did want war and the spineless appeasement policies of his chief opponents in Europe encouraged him to believe that no one would stand in his way. It wasn't until the invasion of Poland that Britain and the rest of Europe woke up to the fact that appeasing Hitler wasn't going to work and that the man would do what he damn well pleased regardless of what anyone said or did.

    Over half a century later, Britain has learned the lessons taught by World War II. Appeasement does not work. Threats to world or even regional stability and peace must be met with firm determination and a willingness to resort to military force if necessary. Negotiated settlements with tinpot dictators are nothing but a ploy to buy time and confuse international resolve.

    In a show of determination, and demonstrating that he, at the very least, listens to the lessons of history, Tony Blair has broken ranks with Britain's European allies and neighbors and stands resolute with President Bush in confronting the threat Saddam Hussein represents to the world. Even though the domestic political environment in Britain is against any war with Iraq, Blair will do what he feels and what he knows is necessary: confront Hussein, militarily if necessary, and forgo the appeasement policies which brought about such destructive horror 60 years ago.

    Britain learned. Appeasing Saddam Hussein today is even more dangerous than appeasing Adolf Hitler was over 60 years ago. Hussein must be confronted, he
    must be brought up short in his goal of acquiring or creating a nuclear weapon, and the threat to world and regional peace and stability removed.

    Britain learned.

    Unfortunately, the rest of Europe has not. France and Germany, especially, are still stuck in pre-Hitlerian policies of appeasement and non-confrontation. War, they say, is not the answer, but negotiating with a murderous idiot bent on getting his hands on the most destructive weapon in human history is.

    Appeasing Hitler, taking a non-confrontational approach with the man, was dangerous. Doing so with Saddam Hussein is insane.

    Britain knows this, because Britain learned--painfully--with Hitler.

    The rest of Europe had better learn as well. Fast. Or the next lesson just may be the nuclear annihilation of Paris or Berlin.
  2. JMX

    JMX Vorsprung durch Technik

    Sep 4, 2000
    Cologne, Germany
    oh no...not again... :rolleyes:

    Another lamer kissing dubya's behind (the author, not you junior)?
  3. Brooks


    Apr 4, 2000
    Middle East
    Yup...Tony will do/say anything Bush wants him to, and then some.
  4. well i'll be, a comparison to hitler. didn't see that one coming! :rolleyes:
  5. DanGouge


    May 25, 2000
    Invoking the Nazis, I have found, is a cheap and easy way to bolster an argument whether or not that argument is otherwise valid.

    Basically the logic here is this: In one famous incident, a policy of appeasement proved to be a dismal failure. Therefore any reaction to a real or perceived international security threat that is less than all out war will have the same results.

    Anyone REALLY buy this? Put aside the loaded emotional context of the Nazi comparison and tell me how, first, anything less than war is somehow appeasement, and second, if you believe that that is the case, why is it that because appeasement failed once it is never, ever, ever a good policy and no government should ever pursue it, ever.
  6. JMX

    JMX Vorsprung durch Technik

    Sep 4, 2000
    Cologne, Germany
    And it's interesting, now that there are no news from Afghanistan/Bin Laden, get the Iraq/Saddam card out of the closet, exactly one year after 9/11.
    There still is not valid proof of a connection, that's ONE reason you can't compare this to WWII and Hitler.

    I'm sooo tired of these "you're either with us or against us" tirades. It doesn't work that way.
  7. I dont know. I don't like war and I certainly dont like the state of politics the US or Britain have been engaged in for god knows how long. But, I do think the relationship brought up in the article is a good one. No one thought hitler was a threat until he actually was a serious one and I believe the same to be true with Hussein. Hell, weve already gone to war with him, pretty much ruined "his" country, and his political emphasis is still on serious military power with whatever weapons he has or has intentions of creating. If talking and negotiating worked it would have dettered Hussein every time UN inspectors entered his country and they have been going over there since the 80's. For me I think talk is cheap and after a lot of talking the only resolution is action. I'm not too keen on the Bush administration or any administration that there has been for the past 12 years, but I think if people werent so anti-bush, a lot more poeple would be in favor of some action taken against Iraq. It's unfortunate how politics distort things. But, all of this is of course is just my humble opinion.
  8. BassAxe


    Jul 22, 2002
    Culpeper, VA
    He has invaded two of his neighbors; Kuwait and Iran.
    He has violated UN-imposed disarmament policies for over a decade.
    If ever an arguement for parents being responcible for how their children behave, his own sons are murderous psychopaths.
    He achieved his position in power by murdering his political opponents - a page right out of Hitler's game plan.

    Despite the repetitive propaganda of "Britain learned", comparing Saddam to Adolf is not a cheap shot. It is a perfect fit.

    Was anyone here bullied as a kid? Did appeasement work then? How about negotiations or crying to the teacher?
    I never saw anything work until someone opened up a good old fashioned can o' Whoop-Ass!
  9. Brad Johnson

    Brad Johnson Commercial User

    Mar 8, 2000
    Gaithersburg, Md
    Boom Bass Cabinets, DR strings
    Spearhead, it sounds like you're saying that if a Democrat was in the White House, more people who oppose an instant war might be in favor of it. Did I get that right?
  10. See...thats called a political twist. I didnt say that at all. What I said was that a lot of people associate their feelings of this war with their feelings for Bush. You dont think a much more popular president who would portray their stance and their intentions in a much more publically appeasing way might sway peoples opinions of the war. To deny that would be ludicrous. I dont want people dying and war is never a good solution, but often times nessecary. If their was an easy negotiable way out of this, hell I'd take it. But the facts are that Bush hates Hussein and Hussein hates Bush and they are both only going to say things to frustrate the situation. I'm not in the position of deciding what should happen right at this moment (which is a serious issue I have with american democracy), but if I was I would make a very covert swift strike to take Hussein out of power and give something back to the majority of Iraqi citizens who have been deprived of something better for too long. Thats just me and those are my reasons.
  11. DanGouge


    May 25, 2000
    I really don't think that the comparison with Hitler is valid. In addition to my above comments I would like to add:

    Hitler suspended democratic rule in Germany by claiming that a communist had attempted arson on the Reichstag
    In 1935 he broke the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. France and Britain (the countries most immediately able to respond to this treaty breach) along with the rest of the world, did nothing. At this time the German Wermacht is just a hint of what it will become. Any competent European army of the day could counter it.
    In 1938 (I think) Hitler annexed Austria, another breach of the Treaty of Versailles
    In 1938 Hitler annexes the Sudetenland and later all of Czeckoslovakia.
    During this time an increasing campaign of hatred is being waged against the Jews - no death camps yet, but it's pretty clear the Jews of Europe are in grave danger.

    By the time of Chamberlain's annoucement of "peace in our time" it is patently obvious that Hitler is relentless and no one has stood in his path. This feeds the ideologue's myth of his own power and emboldens him further.

    Saddam attempted two invasions, one of Iran (with US support) and another of Kuwait. That one was effectively countered by swift military action. Unlike Hitler, Saddam's ideology is only that of power. He talks the talk of radicals from time to time but it's only an act to drum up support. He has a secular regime you will recall. He lacks the regional hegemony that Germany possessed in central Europe. While he may have weapons programs they have surely been severely crimped by constant international monitoring and periodic airstrikes. The world ignored Hitler and paid a terrible price. No one is ignoring Saddam.


    Sorry for the shouting
  12. What about all the right-wing dictators WE appeased. Hell, not just appeased, but helped! The Shah of Iran for one thing. Set up a secret police trained by the CIA to stamp out any rebellious thought against him. Just like Saddam. Then, when he was kicked out, we didn't call in Delta Force or whatever, we sold the Ayatollah (supposedly our enemy) weapons to release the hostages. That's not exactly what I'd call a good example a country in the supposed position of being "tough on terrorist" and the "defender of freedom".
    There are no real arguements against going to war against Saddam, we're just badgering him and getting nothing accomplished. Shouldn't the U.S. first priority be to obtain some kind of peace and understanding, especially with middle eastern countries?
    I think there are more examples of the dangerous consequences of rash actions than there are of "policies of appeasement" (which isn't what the UN is trying to accomplish) blowing up in people's faces.
  13. Mathias_TfG


    Apr 28, 2002
    New York
    threat Saddam Hussein represents to the world
    What threat would that be?

    The UN inspectors destroyed Saddam's means of production and his weapons caches. They did their job, and were withdrawn.
  14. oddentity

    oddentity Supporting Member

    Nov 20, 2000
    Yes - first and foremost should be the resumption of a credible Israel/Palestine peace process. That would go a long way toward reducing Arab enmity towards the US.

  15. How are you so sure that they got rid of everything? Even if they did, don't you think they could of have built more since then?

    I don't think Saddam will ever become as powerful as Hitler, BUT he can prove slightly formidable at the cost of north american and european lives. I don't wanna take the chance. Our lives are worth more than that.

    and to JMX...No, I didn't write the article.
  16. JMX

    JMX Vorsprung durch Technik

    Sep 4, 2000
    Cologne, Germany
    I know.

  17. Reagan was a terrorist. His *secret government* funded and sold weapons to the contras, also know as the *freedom fighters :rolleyes: * who were terrorists

    Of course, the weapons were sold for an extreme profit, good old capitalism.
  18. temp5897

    temp5897 Guest

    This happened in 98. Clinton spoke out on the need to confront Saddam Hussein because of his danger and democrats like Tom Dashcle were gung ho for it. If you care for sources I will look for it later because its 2am and I am about to hit the sack. But pretty much everyone that has spoken out AGAINST attacking Saddam was absolutly 100% for it in 98 when Clinton was in office and said it was necessary. If he was such a danger then how could he be less of one 4 years later?
  19. temp5897

    temp5897 Guest

    Except for the fact that Yassar Arafat has stated that "peace for us only means the destruction of Israel." How do you negotiate with someone who says those sorts of things and sponsers suicide bombers? It's really a shame.
  20. temp5897

    temp5897 Guest

    This is not true. Go listen to former inspectors. They say all they got were games and lies from Saddam. They were kicked out of the country! They have broken every UN resolution passed on them, and what is the answer being called for? More resolutions! They need to enforce the ones that already exist!