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

[Remiel]

Why do you despise Churchill so thoroughly as to horribly insult his character and memory by comparing Bush to him?

[M.Dancer]

Why do you despise Churchill so thoroughly as to horribly insult his character and memory by comparing Bush to him?

Iève been re-reading the histrory of the second world war by Churchill...........I am confident that Churchill would not have allowed Bush in his cabinet.....

[Liam]

Cabinet?? Churchill wouldn't have allowed Bush in his kitchen.

[Higgly]

Churchill would have had him in the stockade as a deserter. The guy was AWOL for much of his service was he not?

[jdobbin]

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.

Iraq was never about September 11 and the "war on terrorism".

And Churchill would have horsewhipped a guy like Bush who balked at serving in combat.

[Black Dog]

Another difference between Bush and Churchill: the latter knew a thing or two about Iraq, having helped set it up in the first place.

'I hate Iraq. I wish we had never gone to the place," said Winston Churchill in 1926 when, as Chancellor, he was asked to sink yet more millions into Britain's "Mesopotamian entanglement".

[jdobbin]

Another difference between Bush and Churchill: the latter knew a thing or two about Iraq, having helped set it up in the first place.

'I hate Iraq. I wish we had never gone to the place," said Winston Churchill in 1926 when, as Chancellor, he was asked to sink yet more millions into Britain's "Mesopotamian entanglement".

That's brilliant. Maybe if Bush *was* more like Churchill, he wouldn't have gone to Iraq.

[Black Dog]

Some reading for those who like making comparisons between Hitler and Saddam and who think Saddam was a threat.

First: Appeasement Reconsidered, a well-reasoned counterpoint to the all-too frequent references to Munich. Among the conclusions:

No post-1945 foreign dictatorship bears genuine comparison to the Nazi dictatorship. The scope of Hitler’s nihilism, ambitions, and military power posed a mortal threat to Western civilization. No other

authoritarian or totalitarian regime has managed to employ such a powerful military instrument in such an aggressive manner to fulfill such a horrendous agenda.

...

The problem with seeing Hitler in Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Saddam Hussein is that it reinforces the presidential tendency since 1945 to overstate threats for the purpose of rallying public and congressional opinion, and overstated threats in turn encourage resort to force in circumstances where deterrence, containment, even negotiation (from strength) might better serve long-term U.S. security interests.

Next, there's this from Foreign Affairs: Saddam's Delusions: The View From the Inside which paints a picture of Huseins regime as impotent and incompetent, burdened by a crumbliming military and the dangerous fantasies of its leadership.

Throughout the years of relative external peace for Iraq after Operation Desert Storm, in 1991, Saddam Hussein continued to receive and give credence to optimistic assessments of his regime's prospects dished up by his top military officers. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz described the dictator as having been "very confident" that the United States would not dare to attack Iraq, and that if it did, it would be defeated.

...

When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.

[jbg]

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?

What would Saddam's finances have looked like with $60 oil?

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.

Are you sure?

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.

So you're agreeing the Brits should have invaded before the Rhineland occupation?

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.

Iraq and Afghanistan are two Muslim, Eastern locations. The logistics of fighting in New York City are far more difficult, and I'd rather they concentrate on holding their desert paradise (the "Ummah") rather than reducing NYC to rubble, courtesy of crashed planes and cell-phone triggered ordnance.

[jdobbin]

What would Saddam's finances have looked like with $60 oil?

If the embargo and blockade held, what would it matter?

[Wilber]

So you're agreeing the Brits should have invaded before the Rhineland occupation?

They could not have invaded, they didn't have the resources. Even in 1940 the BEF only made up 10% of allied ground forces. Only France had an army large enough.

[jbg]

Even in 1940 the BEF only made up 10% of allied ground forces. Only France had an army large enough.

Forgot about them. Their army has been known to surrender to a car backfire or a lightning bolt.

[Wilber]

Even in 1940 the BEF only made up 10% of allied ground forces. Only France had an army large enough.

Forgot about them. Their army has been known to surrender to a car backfire or a lightning bolt.

France had over 1.2 millon killed in WWI which ended only 18 years before 1936. Could be they weren't in a big rush to do it again.

[Black Dog]

What would Saddam's finances have looked like with $60 oil?

Probably pretty good. And?

Are you sure?

Yes.

So you're agreeing the Brits should have invaded before the Rhineland occupation?

No.

Iraq and Afghanistan are two Muslim, Eastern locations. The logistics of fighting in New York City are far more difficult, and I'd rather they concentrate on holding their desert paradise (the "Ummah") rather than reducing NYC to rubble, courtesy of crashed planes and cell-phone triggered ordnance.

What about Madrid? London? Egypt? Jordan? Morocco? Saudi Arabia? These are places where therrorists have succeded in pulling off attacks despite the lure of targets in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Rue]

I think comparing Sadaam Hussein to Hitler is just not appropriate. If anything he is a miniture version of Joseph Stalin not Hitler.

I think its symplistic to say that every mad-man who is a tyrant is like Hitler, and anyone who claims to be fighting for democracy is like Churchill.

To start with Winston Churchill was a far more gifted statesman and intellect then Bush. What is clear about him was that like Bush, he was an alcoholic but unlike Bush he could function drunk and his memory for detail and his ability to understand nuances and flex with developments is far above anything Bush could ever dream of.

To be blunt, George Bush is a misfit. His Master;s in Business from Yale was paid for. He spent his entire life before the Presidency in a drunken haze and a life of sheltered privilege. His governorship in Texas was a joke. It is one of those state's where the governor barely does anything, it was a figure head position much like when Pappy bought him a share of the Texas Rangers.

Bush did not run a Navy and can not read and write as an insightful journalist like Churchill did. He has no knowledge of history like Churchill did.

He does not understand the military as Churchill did.

Churchill lived in an era of immediate danger. Bush lives in a guilded cage and danger is filtered from him.

Churchill lived in a country where he could see the suffering of his people daily. Bush when confronted with a relatively basic crisis such as New Orleans hid, and when he did surface unlike Churchill, he had no ability to rally the people.

So to compare Bush to Churchill is a joke. He is an intellectual pip-squeak and quite stupid. He is what America wants, a dumbed down leader. They do not like people like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton because it requires they read and listen to what they say. Instead they prefer Reagan or Bush, people who speak at an idiot level with simple words and guffaw at their own stupidity.

Bush is surrouned by weak, brittle, one demensional men such as Rumsfeld and Chaney whereas Churchill was surrounded by brilliant often colourful and eccentric characters and unlike Rumsfeld or Chaney well read ones at that.

Sadam Hussein was a horrid man, and a miniture version of Stalin. Yes he committed genocide against Kurds, and ran his country like a good facist dictator, but his impact on the globe was far more limited then either Hitler's or Stalin's. If anything he is a modern day Mussolini, a bafoon. Unlike Mussolini who did encourage war crimes in Ethiopia, Hussein's genocide against Kurds and terror against his own people was probably worse.

Let us not kid ourselves for one moment. Churchill's battle was a world battle and had he notbeen able to inspire the free world as he did, Hitler would have changed life as we all know it and take it for granted today.

If Hussein had stayed in power, nothing would have changed for the free world.

Bush did not go in on behalf of the world, he went in as a pathetic trained monkey for oil companies. Bush did not go in with a vision. He did not rally the people of Iraq to liberate themselves as Churchill did in Europe. He has no DeGaulle in Iraq to parachute back into the country to rebuild it like Churchill and Truman did in France. He has no Monroe doctrine to rebuild Iraq. Unlike Churchill, his war is not welcome and is superficial in nature and lacks any moral integrity.

Bush is no Churchill. In the records of history he will simply be remembered as a simpleton who destroyed his country's economy with a colonial expedition that ended in failure.

[jdobbin]

Forgot about them. Their army has been known to surrender to a car backfire or a lightning bolt.

Total lie.

[jbg]

I think comparing Sadaam Hussein to Hitler is just not appropriate. If anything he is a miniture version of Joseph Stalin not Hitler.

I think its symplistic to say that every mad-man who is a tyrant is like Hitler, and anyone who claims to be fighting for democracy is like Churchill.

Stalin did a bit of damage himself. If it weren't for the slaughter of WW II more could/would have been done to stop him.

Bush is no Churchill. In the records of history he will simply be remembered as a simpleton who destroyed his country's economy with a colonial expedition that ended in failure.

Destroyed economy? Dow over 12,000, unemployment, inflation in cellar? I don't think so.

[Riverwind]

Destroyed economy? Dow over 12,000, unemployment, inflation in cellar? I don't think so.

Ask that question again in 5-10 years when American tax rates start raising rapidly to pay interest on the national debt created by out of control spending during the Bush years.

[jdobbin]

Destroyed economy? Dow over 12,000, unemployment, inflation in cellar? I don't think so.

The bill is coming for the next president. We heard this story before.

[jbg]

Destroyed economy? Dow over 12,000, unemployment, inflation in cellar? I don't think so.

Ask that question again in 5-10 years when American tax rates start raising rapidly to pay interest on the national debt created by out of control spending during the Bush years.

I'm not sure. We heard the same cries of doom when Reagan was President. We've gone from greater to even greater since.

What is it, a sense of guilt from having earned a good standard of living, and enjoying it? The Third World people mill around all day, produce nothing and are poor. A surprise?

[Wilber]

Destroyed economy? Dow over 12,000, unemployment, inflation in cellar? I don't think so.

Ask that question again in 5-10 years when American tax rates start raising rapidly to pay interest on the national debt created by out of control spending during the Bush years.

I'm not sure. We heard the same cries of doom when Reagan was President. We've gone from greater to even greater since.

What is it, a sense of guilt from having earned a good standard of living, and enjoying it? The Third World people mill around all day, produce nothing and are poor. A surprise?

China is hardly producing nothing. India is also another giant on the rise. The US trade and fiscal deficits have never been higher. I don't know exactly what all that means but I don't think it is good.

[jdobbin]

I'm not sure. We heard the same cries of doom when Reagan was President. We've gone from greater to even greater since.

Reagan left Bush Sr. to hold to the bag.

[jbg]

China is hardly producing nothing. India is also another giant on the rise. The US trade and fiscal deficits have never been higher. I don't know exactly what all that means but I don't think it is good.

That means that American, Canadian and Western European labor priced itself out of the market. As to China, it is slave labor. Trudeau led the way towards the dubious recognition of the Communists.

[Riverwind]

That means that American, Canadian and Western European labor priced itself out of the market. As to China, it is slave labor. Trudeau led the way towards the dubious recognition of the Communists.

We are kind of depending on the 'slave labour' right now to keep inflation low. Without it the recent spike in oil prices would have produced high inflation and high interest rates. In addition, the US economy is also depending on a Chinese gov't willing to buy all of those gov't bonds. The Chinese gov't would not be willing to do that if owning those bonds did not allow China manipulate the gobal labour market to suit itself.

Practically speaking the only way out of the current crisis is a large devaluation of the US dollar - much like what happened to the Canadian dollar in the 1990s. This would be the least painless approach in terms of of the average American but would reduce the importance of the US economy to the rest of world. For that reason, I believe the history books will describe Bush as the administration who pissed away America's superpower status.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The US will not devalue its currency. The next President is the one that will get left holding the line accross the board and similiarly will be held responsible for the fall of the American empire.