[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

D, I didn't think you got to vote for PM over there.

What? Yeah we did, and now we're regretting it.

---

Ok, I must have misunderstood your system. I didn't think you had direct elections for PM. I thought you elected representatives and whichever party had the majority got to pick the PM.

[Erax]

Originally posted by tbontob:
Many writers say that Hitler was not in his right mind at the end of the war. He blamed the German people for failing him in winning the war and was apparently so enraged by it that he didn't care if Germany was completely destroyed.

The reason given for Hitler not using mustard gas and other gases is that he was apparently gassed as a soldier (corporal?) in WWI. He found the experience so unpleasant, that he didn't amass any great amount of it in WW2.

Now these are two topics I know something about. There is some evidence that Hitler became insane during the course of the war, as a result of an ill-cured case of syphilis, which he contracted as a young man in Vienna. If this is true, it would have been hushed up by the Nazis, so the chances of proving it conclusively (other than getting the KGB to hand over Hitler's body for a forensic examination, assuming they do have it) are scarce. Aside from this, it is well known that he was addicted to morphine towards the end of the war, which contributed to his mental instability.

Now for the gas. Yes, Hitler was gassed when he was a corporal in WWI and that is one reason why the Nazis never employed chemical weapons. But another important reason is that a German scientist had discovered the first nerve gas (by accident, and it nearly killed him) in the inter-war period. The Germans knew American scientists had been doing research with similar chemical compounds, and they knew the US had discovered something and were keeping it secret. They assumed the US also had nerve gas, but in fact the Americans had discovered DDT. The Nazis did manufacture nerve gas during the war, but never used it because they believed the Allies also had it and would use it back on them.

Edit : The two paragraphs above are about WW TWO. The next paragraph is about WW ONE. My original post was unintentionally misleading and might have caused some confusion.

An interesting side note : while the Germans were the first to use gas (chlorine gas, in fact) during WWI, they did not violate the Geneva Convention. That treaty prohibited the member nations from shooting projectiles or artillery shells with a gas payload. What the Germans did was to open the gas containers and let the wind carry the chlorine to the Allied trenches. Of course, this did not prevent the British and French from claiming the treaty had been violated and loading shells with gas to use against the Germans. If the Germans had won, you can bet it would be claimed that it was the Western Allies who broke the treaty (which is technically correct, I may add).

[ June 04, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: Chief Engineer Erax ]

[dogscoff]

while the Germans were the first to use gas (chlorine gas, in fact) during WWI, they did not violate the Geneva Convention

Not on that point anyway. However I'm fairly sure that the massacre millions of jews, gypsies, gays, mentally/physically handicapped and whoever the hell else they wanted rid of would be in contravention of the GC.

[/nitpick]

[Phoenix-D]

Wrong war scoff.

[tesco samoa]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3921/bu...ss_truman.html

[Erax]

I've edited my post to eliminate any possible misunderstanding. I should have made it clear that I was 'changing wars' between the second and third paragraph.

[rextorres]

Wolfowitz: "Iraq war was about oil"

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...970334,00.html

[Erax]

It's almost as if he (Wolfowitz) were playing against his own team.

However, if Bush resigns, Cheney becomes president.



Edit : Although it is far more likely that his 'oil' remark was taken out of context.

[ June 04, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Chief Engineer Erax ]

[tesco samoa]

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0246.html

document of that meeting rex.

: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had Banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other Banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

Nice....

tie that in with the Wolfowitz claim that WMD was just an excuse...

Nice....

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Wolfowitz: "Iraq war was about oil"

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...970334,00.html

Well, not to get into another case of he said/she said, but there are sources that indicate the Guardian did a little "creative editing" on that quote.

Regarding North Korea:

"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage."

"The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=465812&rfi=6

Puts the comment in a totally different, and less diabolical light for sure.

That being said, Wolfowitz is a punk. I wouldn't shed a tear if the Administration fragged him even over a misquote.

Geoschmo

EDIT: Looks like Tesco beat me to the complete context quote. Although he doesn't appear to be getting the same interpretation out of it that I do. Cest la vie.

[ June 04, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: geoschmo ]