Response to A short history lesson


Eyal, this will take me a while. You sure are making me practice my writing skills. For that I thank you, I needed the practice. I agree what happened in WWII is sad and one of the lowest points in time for humanity ever known. I truly believe Hitler thought he could take over and rule the world. I do not mean to make light of Hitlers attempt to anihilate the Jewish people. I am not anti semetic, I find it very sad that the Jewesh people would do to another race/ethnic group (Palestinians) what was done to them. I also think that when a people is pushed that far down, they will fight with whatever they have to survive (human bombs). That said, I do think that although it may be more covert, racism does play a part in Bush's plan for Iraq. I don't think there is just one side to his plan, but several. The oil argument also has some validity. Democracy, I'm afraid, has little to do with it. My comparison between Bush and Hitler is about their need to be the big kid on the block. Both feel/felt intitled to overrun anyone in the way. Bush is doing with bombs what Hitler did in the gas chamber. I think he will have to stop after Iraq only because the world won't tolerate him to try this again. His own people will have to hold him down from here on. Americans, despite a approval 70% pole, are very unhappy with what he has done. Even our press, which has been a paper tiger, is starting to express concerns. One thing we agree on is that it seems we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. We just disagree about what those mistakes mean in some areas. Eyal, America did not conquer Europe. It worked in conjunction with GB, Russia, France. That is why those four are permanent members of the UN. The super powers of that day. Also, Roosevelt had no designs on Europe. He may not have even gotten into the war if Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor. Right or wrong, once America commits to something, it is very hard for them to stop. That is why I don't think Bush will really let the UN in Iraq. He'll be afraid they'll see more chinks in his armor. The scales have already been showing skin and it wouldn't take much to topple his lies. Blair will crack eventually because he'll get put in place by Bush. I have no qalms with Saddam being a horrible leader and no doubt he has done awful things to his people. I just think we are hipocritcal to use him as an example when (1) we created and armed him, and (2) there are others just as bad or worse that we call friend. This really isn't about Saddam. Jackqueline told you what Bush convinced Americans of we know who perpetrated 9/11 and it wasn't Saddam. I also think we had him in a box and he wasn't going anywhere so this could have been done without violence. I am glad you want peace and hate war. I'm a little confused on this part. Are you saying you agree that the Iraq situation should not have been handled by force? Or are you saying the Israeli/Palestinian situation should be handled without force? I certainly think both could and should be handled without force. Its like a parent who tells a kid hitting is bad and then beats up the kid. That kid will most likely grow up to beat his kids. Love and peace,

Created By: Sharon White