Bush Planned Iraq Invasion Before 9/11

[Styles]

But there's a big difference between him and what caused WW2. Hussein wasn't conquering other nations left and right like Hitler.

He tried to invade Kuwait and likely would have posed a serious threat to Israel. You do realize that appeasement was used with Hitler figuring "he's not such a threat", let him just invade a country or 2 and he'll leave everyone else alone. Those who appease evil are no better than the perpretators.

[AboveAverage484]

There were deaths before.

 

Do a little research and see the death tolls for Allied troops in Japan AFTER World War II ended.

-=Mike

I meant killed by Iraqis. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, dude.

[Guest MikeSC]

There were deaths before.

 

Do a little research and see the death tolls for Allied troops in Japan AFTER World War II ended.

-=Mike

I meant killed by Iraqis. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, dude.

Post-war fighting is not unusual and post-war fatalities aren't rare. There were some combat casualties, but as Bush pointed out, the people who refused to fight on the battlefield are now fighting out of the shadows.

 

Deaths after the end of official hostilities aren't unheard of, and 500 is a small number.

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

But there's a big difference between him and what caused WW2. Hussein wasn't conquering other nations left and right like Hitler.

He tried to invade Kuwait and likely would have posed a serious threat to Israel. You do realize that appeasement was used with Hitler figuring "he's not such a threat", let him just invade a country or 2 and he'll leave everyone else alone. Those who appease evil are no better than the perpretators.

There's a HUGE difference betwen Hitler and Saddam. Even comparing their respective military strength of arms is preposterious. Same with comparing them at all. two different wars, two different areas of the world, two different centuries. it's apples and oranges.

[Justice]

But there's a big difference between him and what caused WW2. Hussein wasn't conquering other nations left and right like Hitler.

He tried to invade Kuwait and likely would have posed a serious threat to Israel. You do realize that appeasement was used with Hitler figuring "he's not such a threat", let him just invade a country or 2 and he'll leave everyone else alone. Those who appease evil are no better than the perpretators.

There's a HUGE difference betwen Hitler and Saddam. Even comparing their respective military strength of arms is preposterious. Same with comparing them at all. two different wars, two different areas of the world, two different centuries. it's apples and oranges.

The only true difference is success rate. If the allies had INSTANTLY attacked Hitler after he went after Poland he'd have been screwed. Militarily, Iraq during the Persian Gulf War had one of the greatest land armies known to man in sheer bulk. But in ambition and government, no, there isn't much different with Hitler and Saddam. Just ask the Shite Muslims.

[Justice]

All I know is there are 500 dead Americans at the hands of Iraqis since we invaded, compared to zero before.

Wow, 500 lives for the freedom of 25,000,000 people. When I look at it like that, it definitely wasn't worth it.

 

"Freedom is not free."

- Inscription on Korean War Memorial in Washington, D.C.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

But there's a big difference between him and what caused WW2. Hussein wasn't conquering other nations left and right like Hitler.

He tried to invade Kuwait and likely would have posed a serious threat to Israel. You do realize that appeasement was used with Hitler figuring "he's not such a threat", let him just invade a country or 2 and he'll leave everyone else alone. Those who appease evil are no better than the perpretators.

There's a HUGE difference betwen Hitler and Saddam. Even comparing their respective military strength of arms is preposterious. Same with comparing them at all. two different wars, two different areas of the world, two different centuries. it's apples and oranges.

The only true difference is success rate. If the allies had INSTANTLY attacked Hitler after he went after Poland he'd have been screwed. Militarily, Iraq during the Persian Gulf War had one of the greatest land armies known to man in sheer bulk. But in ambition and government, no, there isn't much different with Hitler and Saddam. Just ask the Shite Muslims.

the quality of troops and the support he had at home was much better than Saddam had. but once again this is apples and oranges.

[Justice]

But there's a big difference between him and what caused WW2. Hussein wasn't conquering other nations left and right like Hitler.

He tried to invade Kuwait and likely would have posed a serious threat to Israel. You do realize that appeasement was used with Hitler figuring "he's not such a threat", let him just invade a country or 2 and he'll leave everyone else alone. Those who appease evil are no better than the perpretators.

There's a HUGE difference betwen Hitler and Saddam. Even comparing their respective military strength of arms is preposterious. Same with comparing them at all. two different wars, two different areas of the world, two different centuries. it's apples and oranges.

The only true difference is success rate. If the allies had INSTANTLY attacked Hitler after he went after Poland he'd have been screwed. Militarily, Iraq during the Persian Gulf War had one of the greatest land armies known to man in sheer bulk. But in ambition and government, no, there isn't much different with Hitler and Saddam. Just ask the Shite Muslims.

the quality of troops and the support he had at home was much better than Saddam had. but once again this is apples and oranges.

But you are missing the biggest detail: Saddam still had one of the largest militaries in the Middle East and he had proven that he wasn't afraid to use it. He still was a threat, just as large as Hitler because the Middle East is far less stable than Europe and both Saudi Arabia and Iran have inferior military strength. They are very similar, dude.