-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
United States is a hypocrite
Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Comparing Hussein to Hitler is like comparing a street thug to Charles Manson. Germany in WW2 held all the advantages, had clear intent to invade and destroy its neighbors and lands well beyond and are there were ZERO world superpowers to check aggression.
Enter Iraq today. It's attempted Kuwait invasion (to which there may be some claim to) failed miserably and they were repelled and contained. Most of their military wasn't all that great to begin with and most of it was destroyed. Today, due to sanctions and constant bombing they're still very weak. They can't properly maintain their equipment. Only a few dozen top-of-the-line tanks remain none of which can deal with Western tanks. No air power, the list goes on.
Yet Bush keep muttering about a "growing threat", and "immediate threat", oooooh "WMDS out ta getcha!", and on and on. This is an exageration and its misinformation and the load of it does a disservice to America.
Enter Iraq today. It's attempted Kuwait invasion (to which there may be some claim to) failed miserably and they were repelled and contained. Most of their military wasn't all that great to begin with and most of it was destroyed. Today, due to sanctions and constant bombing they're still very weak. They can't properly maintain their equipment. Only a few dozen top-of-the-line tanks remain none of which can deal with Western tanks. No air power, the list goes on.
Yet Bush keep muttering about a "growing threat", and "immediate threat", oooooh "WMDS out ta getcha!", and on and on. This is an exageration and its misinformation and the load of it does a disservice to America.
By the time Saddam conquer the entire Arab Penninsula, we'll incure a greater cost of lives trying to get rid off him. And why the heck did France doing business with him?? I can understand the Russian with their non-existant economy and desperate need of $$$, but the France???
That's great, that's very commendable. I would have done the same, had I been involved.
Would you have gotten involved in a fight between two large, angry men? If one of them was totally incapacitated, yes, but if they were equally going at it, would you step between them?
What if the one who lost was walking around with a cast? Would you still take him out them? He's a threat, isn't he?
ReiAyanami
Diamond Member
Hussein today can do far more damage than Hitler did 50 years ago. technology has changed warfare making it so efficient a single madman can wipe out an entire city instantly via nuke or kill tens of millions by biological agents. Hussein may not be Hitler, but thanks to WMD he's more dangerous.
You're comparing grain to armed weaponry ? Grain can't be used to kill people like armed weaponry, nor allow them to update their army to be more dangerous against your own. Also those French won't ever mop up the mess they create anyway, they;ll just turn to the US and then critizes the living daylight out of us.
We have a winner. We have kept Saddam locked up in box(as per UN resolutions)for 11 years now, and guess what he is not amused. He would gladly do anything to get back at US. Since we know he wants to do harm to US, we have a right to defend ourselfs.
This all because of failed UN policy.
ReiAyanami
Diamond Member
don't forget how the liberal media calculates the cost of war out of proportion. when they say a war on iraq will cost billions, they leave out the part about how we already paid billions for our army, the cost is the same whether we use our army or not. the only true financial cost is A) fuel and B) ammo/missiles which is rather small costs, not to mention we already paid for those missiles anyway and they are in surplus. essentially, if we do not goto war, we lose billions for a unused army. if we goto war, then it becomes money well spent.
did u know the civil war could have been ended on the very first day of battle between the two armies? the northern general [cant remember his name] built up a polished army but was so scared of losing his pretty soldiers and so when the south retreated and he could of taken their capital, he didnt and instead sat back letting the confederates build more strength. so do we want a quick 2 month battle or a long 4-year war?
did u know the civil war could have been ended on the very first day of battle between the two armies? the northern general [cant remember his name] built up a polished army but was so scared of losing his pretty soldiers and so when the south retreated and he could of taken their capital, he didnt and instead sat back letting the confederates build more strength. so do we want a quick 2 month battle or a long 4-year war?
char, I disagree. Most of the Arab states are rushing to produce WMDs and beefing up their military. Syria, for instance has what's believed to be a robust WMD program covering all the bases including nuclear. WMDs act as a deterrent and will do so in the future.
The read problem is atomic and radiological WMDs in the hands of terrorist groups like al qaeda. Iraq is simply a side quest at best.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
