« another day, another ted rall bitchfest | Main | Tell me about the loneliness of good, He-Man. Is it equal to the loneliness of evil?* »

long quote of the day

Neil Cavuto:

Yea, it's been done before, but it's worth repeating.

Time for a lesson about a leader who gets panned. He wants to take on a bully. But trouble is, not many agree he is a bully.

They call the leader clueless.

The French foreign minister calls him reckless.

A Belgian diplomat says he risks ruining world order.

Opposition leaders at home call him a warmonger.

The bully himself says he not a bully and takes out ads in newspapers assuring the world he has no hostile intentions.

Those same newspapers call the leader arrogant. That he's wrong about the bully and that the leader's not in sync with the civilized world.

The Swiss pan him.

The Germans say they're offended.

Even regular folks in the leader's country say the leader's nuts. One newspaper calls him paranoid. Another, a "bellicose boob."

The leader is shunned. He won't go far, says one headline. The wrong man at the wrong time fighting the wrong war.

But this leader had it right. The bully had lied and the bully did attack. And this leader -- of an opposition party -- became the leader of a country.

You might have heard of him. His name was Winston Churchill. And the bully was Adolph Hitler.

Funny thing... history.

Found here


Iraq's military budget is $1.4 billion (much less than many of its immediate neighbours. You're country's is $400 billion. Iraq is not comparable to Nazi Germany.

Ah, another excuse to dust off "The Gathering Storm" and re-experience history once again.

Blamb- Of course not.

Germany had a history of invading and/or attacking its neighbors; Iraq, on the other hand...

Germany had mustard gas, horrid rockets meant specifically to hit civilian targets, and was working on developing a nuke (and nearly did); Iraq, on the other hand...

Germany rounded up, shot, and/or gassed some of their own "undesirable" people; Iraq, on the other hand...

Nothing to see here folks, move along please.

Alrighty-dighty ...

Instead of just arguing with you, I'm going to argue your point for you ... only better.

How are Nazi Germany and Hussein's Iraq similar? The Nazis, seeing the success of the US, figured that a unified Europe was the logical progression to compete internationally in the 20th century. Military conquest was their way of trying to bring that about. Hussein, a nationalist, sees (or saw) unifying the Arab nations as a way of competing globally as well, and wants (wanted) to accomplish this through military action.

How's THAT?

Your three examples, when taken in the context of when, how and why they occurred, are not good comparisons.

... and your country has a $400 billion military budget.

Ah, so since we have 400 billion (which, God knows I didn't see much of during my enlistment) we shouldn't go to war with Iraq?

To me, it seems like that would be a good thing, that our might will be so devistating that the resistance will be brief. I mean, the poor bastards couldn't wait to surrender to us the last time, and I hear it's only gone downhill since then.

And as for the Nazi thing, I'm tired of the comparisons either way. Iraq couldn't withstand an onlslaught of inebriated cub scouts where as Hitler actually had us worried for a while. I'm tired of the "Bush is Hitler" crap too since it's such a silly comparison.

I still feel we're in the right conflict but at the wrong time. Saddam has continued to ignore the UN and will continue to ignore them. Hell, even Blix said the inspections would not be feasible unless the threat of force was constantly behind them.

As for me, I really hope the bastard caves in and makes a run for it. Or at least, I hope when we go in, it's short lived and after we've done all the dirty work, the UN will finally get back together and help with the rebuilding.

Then we attack france for fun.

You could recapture EuroDisney!

ok, rob