As the Allied forces closed in on Berlin, Hitler began to speak about the fact that the German people had not proven themselves to be worthy of their great leader or of the illustrious Reich. He fought the battle of Berlin down to the last, senselessly squandering life and property.
With the arsenal possibly available to Saddam, do you think he is going to let the Iraqi people pay a price for his demise? Or possibly so that he can inflict casualties?
Could he…WOULD he place chemical munitions hidden around Baghdad set to go off days after American forces have settled in? Could he have a dirty or possibly nuclear device in the city timed to go off after the Americans arrive? Certainly many Iraqi’s would die as well, but would he consider this a deterent or would he be blinded by blood lust?
The whole of Baghdad is Saddams shield and theres no real guarantee that he’s even in Baghdad. The Iraqi people mean less than nothing to him which is why its totally essential that the world is rid of this madman.
Fortunately for the Iraqi people, this is not World war II where the bombs only had a 1 in 10 chance of hitting the target. Now theres less than a 1 in 10 chance of missing the target.
My hope is that once the US and Britain get to Baghdad that all of the civilians evacuate. For now tho, I hope they are able to leave the places where there are gun placements and any building that has any strategic importance.
I personally can not believe the amount of propaganda going on in the media and even in these message boards. I have not heard one eyewitness account nor a document saying how many Iraqi civilians have been killed since Sadaam came into power. Yet you guys go out of your way to compare this man to Hitler when he hasn’t done a thing to us nor attempted to. Since when since Vietnam did we start believing every word the government and the president says. So far I haven’t seen or heard about evidence which could possibly mean that Sadaam doesn’t care about anyone but himself and has purchased nuclear weapons. Don’t ask me why they are going into Iraq then, because I don’t know. But certain possibilities are oil, or even for Bush’s popularity to go up if we do indeed take care of Iraq quickly which I don’t think we will do. Whatever here’s your chance to blast me, go on.
It was only after I hit SUBMIT that I realized that I’d completely screwed up and failed to include the point I was trying to make.
[sub]I was kinda hoping no-one would notice[/sub]
Anyhoo, unlike Hitler, I’m pretty sure Saddam knows he’s never inspired the love of his people so he won’t spend the final days ranting that they’d betrayed him. Rather, I expect he’ll get the heck outta there. Right now he’s just shopping for a relatively comfortable exile.
Tony Blair said uesterday that ALL proceeds from Iraqi oil will be put in a UN trust fund to be used solely for the rebuilding of a free Iraq. So much for the “war for oil”. Bush has said over and over that the Iraqi oil fields belong to the Iraqi people, and I believe him.
“Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties – perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees. Iraq’s victory was not without cost. The Iraqis suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties, the equivalent of 5.6 million for a population the size of the United States.”
Just how many of your own people have to die in an expansionist war for you to be mentioned in the same sentence as Hitler? I suggest the comparison goes far beyond simple numbers. To paraphrase, a million here and a million there and soon you are talking abouyt a lot of deaths.
I think that, unchecked, Saddam would have attempted to control militarily the Persian Gulf, by which he could control the world’s oil supply. If this were allowed to happen, he would certainly by “Hitleresque”. Fortunately, the UN, the USA and various coalitions over the year have learned from the lessons of WW2 and acted before this could happen.
Anyway, would you like to address the original post?
It’s pretty obvious that Saddam’s not Hitler, isn’t it? There has been enough nasty dictators post WWII that makes better comparisons.
Maybe Pol Pot? Although he was far superior to Saddam in atrocities towards his own people, Saddam on the other hand started agression wars.
But maybe africa would be the best place to look for a regime like Saddams? Anyone got a suggestion?
As to the original post, i doubt it. I would think he would focus on more or less “conventional” warfare and try to get the hell out when he was losing.
Whaaaaaaa? You’re gonna have to do a bit better than that, Milum, m’boy. Such an assertion requires more than even a cite, it calls for a mega-cite, a thermonuclear cite, the Mothra of All Cites.
Strategy wise, a fight for Baghdad is just about his only hope, as slender and tawdry as such it is. He may hope to inflict enough casualties on the “coalition” as to make them relent and cut a deal, or have enough casualties inflicted upon the civilians to make world opinion force a truce.
Cite A: As the Allies advanced on Berlin, Hitler’s power to resist was dependent on hasitly-assembled rag-tag groups of home guards soliders. If these citizen/soliders had disposed of Hitler and sued for peace, Berlin could have been saved.
Cite B: As the Coalition gathers around Baghdad, an uprising of Baghdidians could insure the existence of an untorn Baghdad base to begin a new future.
Uh, Milum, good buddy, what elucidator means by “cite” is a reference to something other than your own opinions, external to this thread, preferably an Internet source that has some independent veracity and can easily be accessed by a Mere Mouse Movement.
Well Milum, if you make a claim that is general knowledge or is generally accepted, there is no need for a cite.
If you are presenting your opinion, there is no need for a cite.
But when you state as fact something that is not a generally held notion, you will be called to back up that fact with a cite from a reliable source. Standard fare here really.
By the way, did you know that in general elections just prior to the fall of Berlin, Hitler won by only a narrow margin over a former American named Eli Wastleknopf?
My take on your opening post newcrasher (disregarding some of the digressions elsewhere in the thread) is as follows…
The Nazi era was a classic case study in nationwide media manipulation and indoctrination. It was also the era of “totalitarianism” - which in many respects, Iraq is also a victim of under the Saddam regime.
But in particular, the media manipulation aspect was paramount in Berlin’s demise. The inability for the German populace to know the true state of play, right up to the very, very last days, was pivotal in preventing the German people knowing when was the safe time to finally storm the “Bastille” as it were.
Conversely, Iraqi State TV as we speak, is proving to be quite the scorpion’s tail for Saddam Hussein.
It seems old Saddam, vain power drunk meglomaniac that he is, has fallen into the trap, for quite a long time now, of making appearances on Iraqi State TV for at least one hour a night - even longer sometimes. And he pontificates on this, that, and everything else. The “good oil” amongst Iraqi’s on the street (according to various press journalists I’ve heard interviewed) is that he’s regarded as a bit of joke in some quarters because, well, he’s just plain getting old and his efforts to manipulate his appearance to maintain the virility of youth invites a fair bit of whispered ridicule.
Accordingly, the Coalition have made a very, VERY strategic decision to leave Iraqi State TV on air you see. They could have wiped it out, easy as pie, but they haven’t - and here’s why…
Within 2 minutes of Saddam’s “glasses wearing statement” going to air, there was speculation throughout the entire Arabic World… “Is that him? Is that a double?” and “Was it pre recorded? He didn’t mention the attack on his life… how come?”
In an instant, the Coalition knew that Iraqi State TV was now a tool they could use - against Saddam. And his lack of statements since, the reruns of old footage - all of it is now openly being discussed throughout all of Iraq…
At some point, probably within 24 hours after the Coalition has solidified every possible major strategic position within the country… I predict that General Franks will jam Iraqi State TV, and perhaps make a statement himself, or perhaps get a very notable Iraqi general who has recently surrendered - to address the Iraqi nation.
And the call will be simple “People of Iraq, it’s over. The Coalition is now in control. They don’t wish to raze Baghdad to the ground, and it would be madness on our part to invite such a fate. You are safe now. Rise up against the Saddam regime. You will be protected. Any Republican Guards who venture into the open to oppose you will be killed instantly from the air. It’s over…”
