Bush the New Churchill, or, What Would World Be Like With Saddam?

[jbg]

Back in 1933, Hitler came to power in Germany. His elevation was accomplished, not by military coup, but by what passed for democratic procedures in the Weimar Republic. The "civilized world" was war weary, after the horrific slaughter of WW I, and looked for excuses not to invade. Those excuses were not hard to find.

First, the excuse was that "power would make him responsible". His re-armament, and occupation of the Rhineland, as well as his massacre of the "Brown Shirts" that initially supported him on June 30, 1934 made short work of that argument. The Ruhr Valley was re-occupied, with not a peep. Winston Churchill, one of the lone voices in the wilderness, was considered an out-of-touch crank, much the way many are now considering GWB.

As we all know, things got worse; far worse. Austria, Hitler's native land, was occupied in the "Anschluss". In March 1938 the Germans were handed the Sudenland. They took the rest of Czechoslavakia, really the only democracy in the area, in September 1938. Again, excuses, but no action, from the civilized countries.

On November 9-10, 1938, the Germans perpetrated the horrific "Christallnacht", which, in retrospect, was the start of the Holocaust. Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues were smashed to bits. The victims were only Jews; the world could live with that. On September 1, 1939, Germany attacked Poland, on the pretext that Poland attacked a German radio station. While Britain and France declared war, in practice they did almost nothing.

The Germans rapidly overwhelmed Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Denmark. Norway, being geographically remote, took a bit longer. Had not the Germans turned on their erstwhile allies, the USSR, who knows if we'd still be living under civilized government? The loss of life in WW II, again, was horrific. The West, again, had over five (5) years notice of what was to come. Hitler told us his plans himself.

Now, fast forward to 2001. Saddam Hussein had, since taking power in the 1970's (I remember him running things long before his official naming to the top positions of Ba'ath Party leader in 1978 or 1979) been making bellicose pronouncements. From all appearances, he was arming fast. Did Israel destroy a "peaceful" reactor as Osirik in 1981? Was Bush to take the chance that Saddam was just trying to be funny? Should we take that chance with Iran's President? With North Korea?

Maybe it is true that Iraq is drowning in sectarian violence. Would we be better off with Saddam paying families to homicide bomb in Israel? Or maybe carry out his lurid threats against the West? I, for one, don't think so.

Now, Saddam's been deposed. Do the left-wing posters, some of whom I quote below, who argue, idiotically, that Somalia or Sudan was the right venue to fight in, or maybe Burundi or Rwanda, wish to see what would have happened had Saddam been left to his intentions and devices?

The Somalia debacle can clearly be attributed to the West's inability to "stay the course" in a crisis or hotspot.

Former US President Bill Clinton has to one of the worst leaders America has ever had! Why did he abruptly abandon Somalia when there were people that supported us and were willing to help? The battle in Mogadishu

that killed 18 US Army Ramgers and "Delta Force" personnel was no reason to cut and run, we should have "hung in there" and fought on and won the peace. No wonder Bin Laden and his disciples are still in business they see us for what we really are-------weak and indecisive!!!

Bush has been in power for six years. Why hasn't he gone back to Somalia to finish the job? Why doesn't he go to Sudan? He called it a genocide. Where is he?

Thats because most of the US forces are over in Iraq fighting where they should ever have been sent in the first place! Once again Americans are being sent to fight and die in a war that the US government have no real plan or intention of winning.

I am quoting the above posts, just to illustrate the kind of carping that many people in the West have been guilty of. People question the fight in Iraq, which had substantial ability and inclination to fund war, terror and danger elsewhere) and argue that we should instead be fighting in areas like Sudan or Somalia with zero resources, people who have almost zero productive potential, that are destined to forever be basket cases. I myself think that while we will never learn what Saddam would have done, we are better off from not having found out.

[jdobbin]

I am quoting the above posts, just to illustrate the kind of carping that many people in the West have been guilty of. People question the fight in Iraq, which had substantial ability and inclination to fund war, terror and danger elsewhere) and argue that we should instead be fighting in areas like Sudan or Somalia with zero resources, people who have almost zero productive potential, that are destined to forever be basket cases. I myself thing that while we will never learn what Saddam would have done, we are better off from not having found out.

There must be a lot of people more left wing than you. They have put Bush down into the 30s in the latest poll. It is Iraq that has put him there first and foremost.

By the way, I've never argued for a fight in Somalia and Sudan.

Churchill got turfed for all his troubles.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15319792/

[Higgly]

Well let's see. We'd probably have about a half million more living Iraqis. We wouldn't have organizations like Al Qaeda taking advantage of the chaos to set up shop in uncontrolled parts of Iraq. We wouldn't have civil war in Iraq. We'd have a couple of thousand more living young Americans. Afghanistan would probably be a lot farther along the road to civilisation. The US economy would be on a sounder footing and not be as deeply in debt with its debtors starting to look nervously at the Euro. America's credibility on the International stage would be a lot stronger. And Paul Wolfowitz would not be in charge of the World Bank.

Did I leave anything out?

[jbg]

Well let's see. We'd probably have about a half million more living Iraqis.

*snip*

Did I leave anything out?

Saddam's people-hungry wood chippers or plastic shredders.

[Higgly]

Saddam's people-hungry wood chippers or plastic shredders.

Yeah, I think he got those from John Deere. Nothing runs like a Deere!

[jbg]

Saddam's people-hungry wood chippers or plastic shredders.

Yeah, I think he got those from John Deere. Nothing runs like a Deere!

Are you saying that Deere is responsible for what a madman uses them for? Is the company that made the boxcutters responsible for September 11?

Oh yes, anything to paint the Muslims as innocents.

[Riverwind]

Saddam's people-hungry wood chippers or plastic shredders.

It appears that story was a fabrication by opponents of Saddam just like the story of Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators in Kuwait was a fabrication. Saddam was still a brute but I think the world would be a safer place today if he was still in power and contained because:

1) There would be no 'home grown' terrorist problem Britain and other western countries (the London bombings would not have happened, neither would the liquid bomb plots)

2) Iran would have continued down the road to reform and would not be aggressively pursuing nukes today

3) The North Korean nuke test would like have never happened (provided Bush also engaged the guy in talks instead of blowing him off and encouraging him to develop nukes).

[Wilber]

Bush another Churchill? Give me a break. You had better bone up on your Churchill. I'll give you a start. Churchill saw action as a soldier in 4 different wars and won a Nobel prize for literature. Mr. Bush?

[jbg]

Bush another Churchill? Give me a break. You had better bone up on your Churchill. I'll give you a start. Churchill saw action as a soldier in 4 different wars and won a Nobel prize for literature. Mr. Bush?

Would you have agreed with Churchill in 1936 about the need to take action against Germany? I doubt it strongly.

[Riverwind]

Would you have agreed with Churchill in 1936 about the need to take action against Germany? I doubt it strongly.

Any attempt to take 'preemptive' action against Germany would have likely backfired since Britain would have then become the aggressor and would have been responsible for the events that followed. Waiting for Germany to strike first was the only practical option available at the time. That said, they could have been better prepared for the invasion when it did come - that much was a mistake.

[jdobbin]

Would you have agreed with Churchill in 1936 about the need to take action against Germany? I doubt it strongly.

This was Churchill's final solution for Gandhi:

"He denigrated the father of the Indian independence movement, Mahatma Gandhi, as "a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back"."

[Wilber]

Bush another Churchill? Give me a break. You had better bone up on your Churchill. I'll give you a start. Churchill saw action as a soldier in 4 different wars and won a Nobel prize for literature. Mr. Bush?

Would you have agreed with Churchill in 1936 about the need to take action against Germany? I doubt it strongly.

We are not talking about me. I don't claim to be a visionary. You are comparing Bush with Churchill. Kind of like comparing the Monkeys with Beethoven.

Are you saying that Saddam presented the same kind of threat to the world as Hitler? The US was attacked by a group based in Afghanistan which hated Saddam's guts and vice versa, so Bush attacks Saddam. This makes him like Churchill?

[jbg]

Would you have agreed with Churchill in 1936 about the need to take action against Germany? I doubt it strongly.

Any attempt to take 'preemptive' action against Germany would have likely backfired since Britain would have then become the aggressor and would have been responsible for the events that followed. Waiting for Germany to strike first was the only practical option available at the time. That said, they could have been better prepared for the invasion when it did come - that much was a mistake.

Riverwind, I admire your honesty. To me, however, given the slaugher that followed, it would have been far preferable for Britain to be the "aggressor" and hang what their equivalents of the BBC and London Times would have thought. Further, the feelings of diplomats who get a head rush plunging into crisis meetings that accomplish little but produce pretty pieces of paper are irrelevant. I believe that it is the duty of free nations to quash aggressive, dictatoria ones.

With Saddam, we did not have to equip ourselves or our Israeli allies with gas masks while waiting for Saddam to wake up on the wrong side of the bed one not so fine morning.

We are not talking about me. I don't claim to be a visionary. You are comparing Bush with Churchill. Kind of like comparing the Monkeys Monkees with Beethoven.

Hindsight is 20/20. Churchill was roundly vilified during the 1930's, his "Wilderness Years", and he was turfed by the voters in 1945. They brought him back in 1952, but most of his legendary status came after he died.

Reagan was similarly vilified as uncouth, slow, stupid, "not all there", etc. Cartoons in the newspaper, during his presidency (at least in mine and his country) often had a charicature of him asking "where's my brain"? Not bad for someone who led a bloodless conclusion to the Cold War.

I believe history will be far kinder to Bush than current MSM pundits are.

Are you saying that Saddam presented the same kind of threat to the world as Hitler? The US was attacked by a group based in Afghanistan which hated Saddam's guts and vice versa, so Bush attacks Saddam. This makes him like Churchill?

Both groups were and are extremely dangerous. My preference is to fight them in Kandahar, Baghdad and Basra. Yours, maybe, is in New York City. How about a compromise, Toronto?

[Figleaf]

Can anyone explain what the choices in this poll even mean? Is English an unfamiliar language to the pollster here?

Saddam was a danger to his own domestic enemies, and no-one else.

[KrustyKidd]

The poll is misworded and bull as is.

Bush another Churchill? Give me a break. You had better bone up on your Churchill. I'll give you a start. Churchill saw action as a soldier in 4 different wars and won a Nobel prize for literature. Mr. Bush?

Risked his presidency by taking action against popular opinion in order to take aggressive action in the War on Terror. Lincoln? He killed a million Americans over a totally unnecessary war and is remembered as one of the finest presidents ever.

This was Churchill's final solution for Gandhi:

Yes Ghandi. Go out and get yourself beat up because that is what I say is the best way. Long as I am in charge. How many people did he kill who would not have been killed?

[jdobbin]

Yes Ghandi. Go out and get yourself beat up because that is what I say is the best way. Long as I am in charge. How many people did he kill who would not have been killed?

So Churchill should have had Gandhi killed?

[KrustyKidd]

So Churchill should have had Gandhi killed?

Not at all. Just showing how Ghandi wasn't a picture of pure humanity, just as guilty of hurting others because he was in a leadership role. He saw an opportunity to do good and took it along with the bad. Same as any true leader does.

[Wilber]

Hindsight is 20/20. Churchill was roundly vilified during the 1930's, his "Wilderness Years", and he was turfed by the voters in 1945. They brought him back in 1952, but most of his legendary status came after he died.

Churchill was far more than his wilderness and war years. Like most legendary people he had his contradictions but he has legendary status because he was larger than life.

Both groups were and are extremely dangerous. My preference is to fight them in Kandahar, Baghdad and Basra. Yours, maybe, is in New York City. How about a compromise, Toronto?

No, my preference is to fight them where they came from and that was not Iraq. Fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda in their home, not be the target of a bunch of different factions trying to carve out their own hunk of the carcass of Iraq. Rather than speculate on where we would be if Saddam was still there, lets speculate on where we would be if the "Coalition of the Willing" had committed the same number of troops and the same kind of reconstruction effort to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Under the sanctions, Saddam was a menace to his own people, some of his immediate neighbours and not a lot more as it turns out.

[jdobbin]

Not at all. Just showing how Ghandi wasn't a picture of pure humanity, just as guilty of hurting others because he was in a leadership role. He saw an opportunity to do good and took it along with the bad. Same as any true leader does.

Exactly. This speculation of Churchill taking on Hitler in 1936 is just bunk. The Brits were having none of this talk with the Depression raging on.

And this idea that Bush is someone like Churchill is simply eyerolling.

Taking on Iraq was not the same thing as defending Poland.

[B. Max]

This was Churchill's final solution for Gandhi:

"He denigrated the father of the Indian independence movement, Mahatma Gandhi, as "a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back"."

As it turned out he was right about that also. Gandhi was the author of his countries poverty and that's about it.

[KrustyKidd]

And this idea that Bush is someone like Churchill is simply eyerolling.

Taking on Iraq was not the same thing as defending Poland.

Taking on the War on terror while the world disproved duing a time when the US was in a Viet nam Syndrome is courageous both personallyand politically. This is not a fight that threatened you now but rather your children and grandchildren. He nipped it in the bud or, is attempting to.

Churchill if allowed could have save the western world had Russia actually carried out their plans which included nuclear attacks on European cities and circumventing them to acheive control of outlying areas. Could they have done that? They planned in it. Can Wahhabist Jihadists achieve the Caliphate? They can if we don't stop them.

[Riverwind]

To me, however, given the slaugher that followed, it would have been far preferable for Britain to be the "aggressor" and hang what their equivalents of the BBC and London Times would have thought.

It is more than a question what the BBC or the Times thought - a preemptive attack would have reversed the entire moral basis for the war. This would have altered the dynamics of all alliances and would have likely been enough to keep both the Russians and the Americans sitting on the sidelines. Furthermore, once the war was won the German people were willing to work with the occupying powers even though the occupation was an affront to their sovereignty as a nation. I believe the relatively peaceful occupation of Germany happened only because the average German understood that they were ultimately to blame for what happened and that they had to move forward. If Britain/France had attacked first (and won) then then many Germans would have seen Britian/France as rampaging colonial powers and chances are there would be another war in a generation.

jgb, I understand why you would like to go back in history and claim that the mass slaughter of innocents could been avoided if only somebody had acted sooner, however, I think that is naive to think that a war can be won with guns and bombs. If you want really want to win a war you have to win the political war as well. Bush senior understood that which is why Guld War I was a success. Bush II did not understand that which is why Gulf War II has been an utter failure.

Reagan was similarly vilified as uncouth, slow, stupid, "not all there", etc. Cartoons in the newspaper, during his presidency (at least in mine and his country) often had a charicature of him asking "where's my brain"? Not bad for someone who led a bloodless conclusion to the Cold War.

Historical revisionists try to make Regean sound like he single handedly brought about the fall of Russia. This is a complete myth. The arms race did put a financial strain on Russia but it was falling oil prices and a inefficient enconomic system that were the real causes. Any US president that was willing to sit on the sidelines and let the beast die on its own would have achieved the same 'victory'. The arms and race and cold war rhetoric accomplished nothing.

Both groups were and are extremely dangerous. My preference is to fight them in Kandahar, Baghdad and Basra. Yours, maybe, is in New York City. How about a compromise, Toronto?

This is a trite piece of propoganda - we never have and never will need to fight Muslims in NY or Toronto. 9/11 was an attack designed to provoke the US into attack countries in the middle east in the hope that such an attack would trigger an Iran style revolution in Saudi Arabia. All terrorists attacks since 9/11 in western countries since 9/11 have direct links to the political failure in Iraq and likely would never have happened if the US had stayed out of Iraq.

[Higgly]

As it turned out he was right about that also. Gandhi was the author of his countries poverty and that's about it.

B.Max, this statement truly shines a light on your 'understanding' of the world beyond our borders.

[Black Dog]

Now, fast forward to 2001. Saddam Hussein had, since taking power in the 1970's (I remember him running things long before his official naming to the top positions of Ba'ath Party leader in 1978 or 1979) been making bellicose pronouncements. From all appearances, he was arming fast. Did Israel destroy a "peaceful" reactor as Osirik in 1981? Was Bush to take the chance that Saddam was just trying to be funny? Should we take that chance with Iran's President? With North Korea?

Hold on champ. Saddam's military capabilities and treasury were drained by the long war against Iran in the 80s and completely shattered by the 1991 Gulf War. As of 2003, there weren't many countries in the region Saddam Hussein could have taken over if he wanted to. As for the statement that he was "arming fast" where's the evidence?

Why do partisan hacks insist on drawing fatuous parrallels between Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler? The two were dictators with comical moustasches: there ends the resemblance.

Maybe it is true that Iraq is drowning in sectarian violence. Would we be better off with Saddam paying families to homicide bomb in Israel? Or maybe carry out his lurid threats against the West? I, for one, don't think so.

What "lurid threats"? A cite, please?

Now, Saddam's been deposed. Do the left-wing posters, ... wish to see what would have happened had Saddam been left to his intentions and devices?

Compared to what? You're assuming, of course, that Saddam would operate in a vaccum. In reality Saddam was contained and, even if sanctions were lifted and he were able to pursue his WMD ambitions, he still would have been extremely restricted. The assumption that the world would walk away from Iraq without a backwards glance is plain false.

Saddam's people-hungry wood chippers or plastic shredders.

As I said elsewhere, Saddam's crimes are numerous and well-documented enough that resorting to myths like the above are uneccesary.

Would you have agreed with Churchill in 1936 about the need to take action against Germany? I doubt it strongly.

Why do people assume that the west could have done a damn thing about Hitler by then? Their best chance came when Hitler occupied the Rheinland. They missed that and after that, there wasn't a damn thing hey could have done.

Both groups were and are extremely dangerous. My preference is to fight them in Kandahar, Baghdad and Basra. Yours, maybe, is in New York City. How about a compromise, Toronto?

As the myriad of terror attacks since Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, it's not an either/or situation.

[Black Dog]

Churchill if allowed could have save the western world had Russia actually carried out their plans which included nuclear attacks on European cities and circumventing them to acheive control of outlying areas.

Huh? First: the Soviets didn't get nuclear weapons until 1949. Second Churchill knew there was precious little the west could do to stop the Soviets from building an empire on the ashes of the eastern Reich.

Can Wahhabist Jihadists achieve the Caliphate? They can if we don't stop them.

Let's assume for a second you're right. But then the argument becomes one of tactics. And its highly questionable that invading Iraq will stop them. And even if it curbs the Wahaabist ambitions, then it creates a host of other problems.