|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-02 06:57:02
Ok, I don't know who started this comparison with Hitler. But there is a serious misconception, there is no
comparison at all with Hilter either with Saddam or Bush. I think what people meant was the history which led to the 2nd world war instead, and i must admit that these people are right.
Most of us know that Mr. Bush wants to invade Iraq for geopolitical reasons, but people should also note that the inspectors left Iraq in 1998, and were not able to inspect anything since that time, which is contrary to the UN resolutions. What happened between 1998 and now? Nothing!!
The world did nothing and did not continue to enforce inspections, which is very bad for UN's image. Now Bush comes along and says he must disarm (and this i totally agree with him), the problem is he wants to invade Iraq for the WRONG reasons, there lies the big problem.
As for comparison with the 2nd world war, simple : Hitler invaded some countries, but the people of the world were so bent on peace that they said, ok, and let us not forget NEVER the image of the UK Prime Minister Mr. Chamberlain getting off his plane in the UK with a paper signed by Hitler saying we would not invade any more countries. A bit later (I don't know exactly when?), Poland was invaded. Hitler had one of the most powerful armies in Europe, the other countries knew this, and nobody tried to stop it, being too bent on PEACE. That led to the 2nd world war.
Reply to this message
|