Agreed. The seeds for WW2 were definetly sown from the armistice in WW1. I wasn't argueing that at all. I was going more for the territory given to Germany by chamberlain. If y memory serves me correctly, Germany acquired most of its advanced tank designs from Checkoslavakia. Granted thats only one half of the blitzkrieg, but you get what I am going for. If they put their foot down right at the beginning, who knows the conflict may never even have taken place. It also could have been 20 times worse. I for one think it would have worked out better.
Now for Bush. First let me say I support him given the options of current leaders. (I HATE Kerry, and despise Clinton.) Now, the thing that gets me about the war in Iraq is that when Bush went to the UN, There was so much behind the scenes BS by everyone that it just seemed like a worldwide power struggle, not a campaign to take out a despicable dictator. France and russia were selling oil and arms to Iraq, and saying they just did not believe that there were WMD's in Iraq. Now from the looks of things they were right, but whose to say they were not moved or destroyed during that period, the whole 5 months or so spent in diplomatic negotiations, which led nowhere. And if Saddam didn't have anything than why dodn't he just let the UN go where they please? He had political support from France and Russia, so if anything went wrond he could go right to them. It just seems fishy too me
In the end, I think Saddam needed to be taken out. If we were dealing with anyone else I would be against any conflict, but he was a horrible person.
Also I'm sick of America taking the blame for everything. I'm not saying we aren't to blame, but we definetly are not the only ones.
I hope you weren't being sarcastic with your remark, I am trying to keep this polite and debated with a clear head like it should be. Nothing comes from name-calling or slandering, as my countries election process proves time and time again
[ April 09, 2004, 05:52: Message edited by: newbie123 ]