Quit comparing Saddam to Adolph Hitler!

[TheDeadWalk]

http://www.timesreporter.com/archive...r=1&Category=6

Scroll to the bottom of the "30 seconds" article, and read. Please, no dog warden jokes.

If you say we have no right to be in Iraq because it didn’t attack us, then we didn’t have a right to be in Germany during World War II. It was the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor, so legitimately the only place we should have been fighting was in the Pacific. We should have let Adolf Hitler alone because he didn’t do anything to us. There are evil people in the world and there are good people who need to go take care of them. Thankfully, that is what the United States is made of.

These are the type of people I have to deal with in my geographical area. To go on a small tangent, today's "30 seconds" features a senior citizen bitch bitching because they took Murder She Wrote off the air and replaced it with raw sex and violence. In a few days I'll find out if my response of "How much are you paying for your cable, because I think I'm being cheated here." gets published or not.

But to the point now -

I've been hearing this for awhile, and I've heard it many times during my Political Science classes. Its fucking bullshit. Saddam is in NO comparison to Hitler.

A.) Hitler had massive amounts of followers, massive amounts of industry, and massive amounts of military power.

B.) Hitler had Japan, and then Italy backing him up. He started attempting to conquer foreign nations, especially our own god damn allies that we were very similar to, and had treaties with. Not to mention Hitler setting the stage for Jewish concentration camps that resulted in the unfortunate deaths of six million people.

Does that even remotely fit Saddam Hussein? Fuck no!

First off, the only problem with the dude is that he just doesn't listen. I don't want to hear the 'bad man shit', because the bad man shit America doesn't care about when you're playing on our side. Look it up far enough, and you'll find a 1980's picture of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with old Saddam. Fuck, we helped FUND him during the seven years war that he had with Iran! He did that shit then to his own people, just like he does now, but America weighed its pros and cons and decided that they would rather send military funding to a non-Islamic nation.

I mean fuck, right before Jimmy Carter was voted out of office, America was funding the "Shah" of Iran, who was mean as FUCK to his people. He even used military funding to form the SAVAK, which was this bullshit badass police force that fucked over protesters and held political prisoners. America supported him until his people actually successfully won against him in the Iranian revolution and became Islamic. See previous paragraph for what America did then.

So what the fuck? We get pissed off and take Kuwait in Desert Storm, and literally handcuff Saddam Hussein. No fly zones from the top of his country, no fly zones from the bottom. Hell, he's completely kept in his own pin, and isn't even aloud to freely sell his country's oil on the open world market.

Yet George Dubbya thought it was time to ruin his shit.

Fuck you George. And you too Saddam.

By that, I mean that I'm no Saddam supporter, but what the fuck? The dude had no power, and was totally handcuffed in his own country. How in the holy fuck can you compare that to the shit Adolph Hitler did, and was capable of?

All this fucking did was lose American lives, make democracy look like communism, and have all Islamic nations in the world start loading up their rifles and gathering around the Koran (since Islam doesn't have an official flag) trying to figure out a way to upend America before they feel that America will upend them.

Fucking shit that 30 seconds caller pissed me off.

I said good day sir.

[loner]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I don't want to hear the 'bad man shit', because the bad man shit America doesn't care about when you're playing on our side. Look it up far enough, and you'll find a 1980's picture of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with old Saddam. Fuck, we helped FUND him during the seven years war that he had with Iran! et George Dubbya thought it was time to ruin his shit.

I get tired of "the US gave Iraq its weapons" argument. We also allied with and helped arm the Soviet Union during WWII. The way this dangerous world works, sometimes an enemy of your enemy must be your friend. Unusual circumstances sometimes cause odd partnerships between opposite gov'ts. And at no time was this more apparent than at the height of the Cold War in the 70's and early 80's.

Now maybe the United States did back Saddam during the Iran/Iraq War. Maybe the US did supply Saddam and Bin Laden with weapons back in the 70's. Well then if that's the case then one could argue that the US is doing the right thing in trying to correct it's mistake and remove them from power.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by loner


Now maybe the United States did back Saddam during the Iran/Iraq War. Maybe the US did supply Saddam and Bin Laden with weapons back in the 70's. Well then if that's the case then one could argue that the US is doing the right thing in trying to correct it's mistake and remove them from power.

That's the thing: They did. That's also the reason that France and Germany were slightly irked, to which America's grand response was to change French Fries to "Freedom Fries".

They believed that Desert Storm's outcome revoked Saddam from his supreme power. He was a very limited man who could do very limited things in his landlocked piece of dirt. To me, this is the ultimate Tony Montana sequence when he promises not to kill you, and when you get that sigh of relief in, he looks at his partner and says "Kill that piece of shit." You took a beaten man, and a beaten country and waited about 10 years to give it that 'knockout punch' after it had already tapped out.

The enemy of my enemy is a correct theory, but its also hypocritical. Don't find justifications in your buddy beating his wife today, just to have a change of heart 10 years later when you fall in love with her. If it's wrong, then it's wrong. Let's label it and call it 'Wrong'. But don't let it pass when its suitable for your needs. That's a decent reason why perhaps we get so criticized as a nation, because people can't fuggin understand what the hell we're thinking.

A 45 year old Islamic citizen sure as shit remembers the United States and Saddam working together, while at the same time hearing of Saddam torturing and killing his own people, only to find out that later America decides that's bad, and is worthy of being punished. To him, that's gotta make him believe that America/Bush has its own motives, and is not to be trusted.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Although I did not agree with the war, I have to say I am glad Hussein could never be anything again.

The only problem is the new government will bite us in the ass eventually.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman

The only problem is the new government will bite us in the ass eventually.

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

And, in response to the whole thing about "my enemy's enemy", I don't think it really applies to Iraq. Saddam didn't start the genocide till after the Iran-Iraq war ended. Therefore, the argument that he was our enemy's enemy doesn't make any difference. Also, although it was proposed in Congress that we cut ties with Iraq after we found out about the genocide, the real reason we didn't was economic: in addition to providing us with oil, Iraq bought a lot of U.S. agriculture.

And I agree that it's stupid to compare Hussein with Hitler. Hussein is nowhere near as charismatic or powerful as Hitler was. As evil and psychotic as Hitler was, he would've been nowhere without his followers, which Hussein has far less of.

Another stupid comparison I've heard is Bush and Hitler. This also is not accurate. If I had to compare Bush to a historical figure, I actually might go with Stalin (who actually was worse than Hitler, he killed more of his own people). Especially because of the reasons for war. Part of the reason Stalin decided to try to take over Europe was to provide a kind of "buffer zone" between communist and non-communist nations. It was all about paranoia. Bush has justified invading Iraq in similar ways, with the whole "get them, before they get us" thing. Also, it was Stalin who fucked up communism, and started taking away people's rights, as the Bush administration is starting to do now.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, hands down he was not as dangerous as Hitler.

As far as the weapons thing -- I have no problem with the US giving them weapons, then being like, "Oh shit.", and wanting it back.

It made sense to me.

What irked me is that El Predidento could have easily told the world, "See, we know they have weapons, because right here are the invoices. They won't let us do a full audit, so we need to smoke 'em out."

Seriously, I think the world would have been cool with that. Instead, they came up with this crazy Hitler comparison which should be an insult to every holocaust survivor and every one of their family members.

Saddam is a maniac, no doubt, but 6 million dead crazy? Nah-uh. No sale.

I think the best comparison, would be to that dude sitting 80 miles of the coast of America. Only difference is that cigars are less propsperous than oil. Oh, I didn't go there.

[quoth_the_raven]

But they both had the dodgy facial hair!

Can't you see the link?

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
[B] "See, we know they have weapons, because right here are the invoices. They won't let us do a full audit, so we need to smoke 'em out."[B]

I'd buy that for a dollar.

[Lynn Minmei]

I don't compare Saddam to Hitler. In my opinion, he's up there with Hitler, so in twenty years we'll mention them in the same breath.

[cstroman]

(since Islam doesn't have an official flag)

Actually it's the "black flag or banner" of the Mahdi. It's the official banner of the hoped for unified "ummah" that will rise up and crush all non-Islamic governments and powers.

You have NO idea what the hell you're tallking about. Hitler and Sadaam were both evil people and YES that is a "moral" definition since "evil" is synonymous with religion/spirituality so to you it probably doesn't exist....

Or should be banned, etc.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by cstroman


You have NO idea what the hell you're tallking about.

There is no excuse for a comment like that.

Moses and Noah are in the same ballpark with God, but nowhere in comparison.

I think I know what the fuck I'm talking about, and I don't see a reason for the overtaking of Iraq. Our president makes us look worse than what we put Saddam out to be. Islamic countries don't trust the American government, and many feel that their country could be the next on the list for invasion.

You may feel that Saddam is evil, but he most certainly was not on a worldwide scale. He couldn't harm a fly. So please tell me, why is it that because he's evil to his own people, but not able to make money on a worldwide scale by selling his oil, cut off from leaving the country, no fly zones filtering who comes into the country? Wow what a great service we did to the world!

The Iraqi people have taken the pussy way out, and they didn't even ask for it.

When people were tired of Catholicism and Great Britain, they moved to North America and started a fucking revolution.

When the French citizens were tired of the aristocratic rule, they started a fucking revolution.

When the Iranians were tired of the Shah and his opposing rule, they started a fucking revolution.


Internally oppressive leaders end up in the way of revolution by means of evolution. Iraq was developing into this in its own way, like a small snow globe. Things needed to be done this way, and American intervention was not needed.

That was no call to compare Adolph Hitler who tried to take over the world in place of the Aryan race and his 'honorary Aryan' Japanese, heading the healm for World War and Nuclear destruction.

That is nowhere near Saddam Hussein.

What on Earth makes America able to justify who is internally bad and who is internally good is beyond me. I mean, holy shit, we let France create a made up government in Indochina and went to war over there to defend it. Thank God we weren't deemed that evil in the 60's, or else we might be saluting a Chinese or Soviet Union flag about now.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by cstroman
Actually it's the "black flag or banner" of the Mahdi. It's the official banner of the hoped for unified "ummah" that will rise up and crush all non-Islamic governments and powers.

You have NO idea what the hell you're tallking about. Hitler and Sadaam were both evil people and YES that is a "moral" definition since "evil" is synonymous with religion/spirituality so to you it probably doesn't exist....

Or should be banned, etc.

God, I wish you were still here. PM me, if you'd like.

George W. Bush is in the same mold as both Hitler and Saddam. No different.

[loner]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
The Iraqi people have taken the pussy way out, and they didn't even ask for it.

When people were tired of Catholicism and Great Britain, they moved to North America and started a fucking revolution.

When the French citizens were tired of the aristocratic rule, they started a fucking revolution.

When the Iranians were tired of the Shah and his opposing rule, they started a fucking revolution.


Internally oppressive leaders end up in the way of revolution by means of evolution. Iraq was developing into this in its own way, like a small snow globe. Things needed to be done this way, and American intervention was not needed.

Iraq was not developing into that. So you're saying the Iraqi people would have eventuallly overtthrown Saddam on their own?? Well when would it happen? Saddam was in power for 25 years. You can't use the American and French Revolutions as a reference to what oppressed peoples should do today. The Old England and French governments were no where near the viciousness of 20th century totaltarian regimes. And back then it was musket against musket......today it's an unarmed population against tanks and chemical gas.

Back in 1989, a thousand Chinese students at Tiannemen Square were protesting their gov't for more basic rights. Their protest was met with soldiers and tanks and many were killed. The same thing happened in Prague in 1968 and Hungary in 1956. It's this vicious use of violence and death against any voices of opposition that keeps the totalatarian governments in North Korea and China and elsewhere in power today. It's the reason why thousands of Cubans on flimsy rafts will try to paddle 90 miles to Florida instead of coming face to face with Castro.

No matter how much the Iraqis wanted Saddam gone, it would have been impossible for them to overthrow him on their own. They lived in fear. Saddam and his loyalists quickly silenced any voices of opposition through the means of death, torture, or prison.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by loner
Iraq was not developing into that. So you're saying the Iraqi people would have eventuallly overtthrown Saddam on their own?? Well when would it happen? Saddam was in power for 25 years. You can't use the American and French Revolutions as a reference to what oppressed peoples should do today. The Old England and French governments were no where near the viciousness of 20th century totaltarian regimes. And back then it was musket against musket......today it's an unarmed population against tanks and chemical gas.

Back in 1989, a thousand Chinese students at Tiannemen Square were protesting their gov't for more basic rights. Their protest was met with soldiers and tanks and many were killed. The same thing happened in Prague in 1968 and Hungary in 1956. It's this vicious use of violence and death against any voices of opposition that keeps the totalatarian governments in North Korea and China and elsewhere in power today. It's the reason why thousands of Cubans on flimsy rafts will try to paddle 90 miles to Florida instead of coming face to face with Castro.

No matter how much the Iraqis wanted Saddam gone, it would have been impossible for them to overthrow him on their own. They lived in fear. Saddam and his loyalists quickly silenced any voices of opposition through the means of death, torture, or prison.

Yeah, Saddam's a bad guy but one of my main issues is that this whole evil statement is only a subliminal message to justify invasion of another country.

America has tended to have this "We'll look the other way while you scratch my back" policy (Iran during the Shah's rule for instance), or they just act like that country never existed. (Cuba, and at a time the Phillipines)

The ones that are the major threats as you have mentioned, are of course China and North Korea. But we don't interfer, its doubtful that we will, and most likely will wind up being diplomatic with Kim in N.K. who has been begging for attention with his nuclear weapons development, and was asking for U.S. security about a year ago.

So we go after this piss-ant country and in-turn just piss off a lot of the Muslim and/or Islamic peoples and nations.

I doubt the new government will work, the people will find it to be nothing more than a puppet to the U.S. government.

I noticed you brought up England and France ala 'Musket for Musket', but you didn't mention Iran's revolution. That was in 1980, and its people unified against the Shah and overthrew him, and put in power the Ayatollah Khomeni who was kept safely in Paris while his people took over. That government is still in establishment today, and the U.S.' disapproval of that government is why it was specially chosen as being one of the members of the infamous 'Axis of Evil'.

I find it laughable when 1,000 Chinese were overturned, when the country has at least a billion citizens. The same citizens who were tired of poverty and starvation and thus had a revolution against the Chinese democratic KMT to become a communist nation under Mao Zedong...

[TheDeadWalk]

Actually it's the "black flag or banner" of the Mahdi. It's the official banner of the hoped for unified "ummah" that will rise up and crush all non-Islamic governments and powers.

Actually it's the "RED WHITE AND BLUE" of the UNITED STATES. It's the official banner of the hoped for unified "50 STATES" that will rise up and crush all non-DEMOCRATIC governments and powers.

[loner]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I noticed you brought up England and France ala 'Musket for Musket', but you didn't mention Iran's revolution. That was in 1980, and its people unified against the Shah and overthrew him, and put in power the Ayatollah Khomeni who was kept safely in Paris while his people took over. That government is still in establishment today, and the U.S.' disapproval of that government is why it was specially chosen as being one of the members of the infamous 'Axis of Evil'.

The Iran situation wasn't "the people" of Iran who rose up against their government and put the Ayatollah in power. That would be like saying it was the Afghan people who wanted the Taliban in power. It was Ayatollah and his extreme followers who overthrew the Shah. Saddam actually helped Ayatollah's cause by starting a war with Iran. And yes that Iranian government is still in power today because it uses the same methods of fear and manipulation as previously mentioned regimes.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by loner
The Iran situation wasn't "the people" of Iran who rose up against their government and put the Ayatollah in power. That would be like saying it was the Afghan people who wanted the Taliban in power. It was Ayatollah and his extreme followers who overthrew the Shah. Saddam actually helped Ayatollah's cause by starting a war with Iran. And yes that Iranian government is still in power today because it uses the same methods of fear and manipulation as previously mentioned regimes.

With Saddam and the Ayatollah, it was really two things. Saddam was afraid he was going to be taken over and lose his dictatorship, as well as being coaxed into the war (and funded) by the United States who was previously using Iran as a makeshift fort nearby the Soviet Union.

Extremists did win out in Iran's case, but that's also doublespeak for the term "winner".

Its like the old saying "Everyone has a right to revolution. You'd just better be good and win at it."

[Tom Samborski]

Saddam was evil in many ways, but as evil as future leaders get, none will ever be able to top Hitler. It is very hard to be more evil than a man who murdered 6 million Jews, killed many more people in other countries, invaded practically all of Europe, and hated anyone who wasn't a white Christian.

[jeo4]

Adolph Hitler was far and away worse than Saddam Hussein. And Even GW Bush compared the two. While this is a completely unfair comparison, the similarities are somewhat noteworthy.

1. Hitler and Saddam both have a specific group of people they consider "bad" and as a result have tortured and killed and outright segregated. For Hitler, it was the Jews. For Saddam, it was the Kurds.

2. Both nations thought that certain areas (which coincidentally had lots of natural resources and great strategic positions compared to them) belonged to them outright because they "used to belong to their ancestors". Hilter took it out on all of Europe. Saddam just wanted Kuwait. As a result on both ends, raping, pillaging, burning and killing happened, although the SS did so on a much more grand scale due to its enormous military population and ease of access to all of Europe.

3. Yes, the U.S. supplied weapons to Saddam. And no, he didn't give them back. However, at the end of the first World War, the U.S. dished out loads of military, agricultural and economic aid to Germany. When the U.S. stock market crashed, the aid had to stop and Germany's entire financial structure collapsed. Hitler eradicated that debt and decided to take possession of lands and resources that were extremely valuable to them, much the same way Saddam did. The primary target was France. The U.S. did nothing. And of course there was Austria. The U.S. did nothing. Then England got involved. Still yet, the U.S. did nothing. But in 1941 when the Japanese attacked our Pacific seaport, THEN we did something. The lesson in this attack was that sitting out when someone with rather lofty goals of world domination is attacking everyone else could lead to disastrous results. Hussein's army and Iraq itself were running dry from the seemingly endless war with Iran. During the Iranian Islamic revolution, Americans were held hostage for over a year. We were considered the enemy because we had an alliance with the Shah of Iran, and therefore innocent citizens were held captive. So naturally, when Iraq and Iran took to fighting, the U.S. took sides with the nation that had acted as an ally for several years. We provided them financial support and weapons. It wasn't until the 1990 invasion of Kuwait that we had a problem with Iraq. This was simply another country being bullied by a larger more fearsome neighbor. America took the proactive approach, attempting not to duplicate a costly mistake made 50 years earlier.

4. Like Hitler, Saddam broke treaty rules from his first surrender just as soon as he could. And he was caught using mobile weapons labs during the Clinton Presidency. There is extensive footage of the Iraqis being admonished by the UN weapons inspectors from the 1990's. Clinton prepared to bomb Iraq, but recalled the attack under fear of his scandal with Monica Lewinsky, which beared a striking similarity with the film Wag The Dog, where the President stages a fake war to pull himself out of a scandal. As a result, nothing was done about the WMD's Iraq still had. The U.S. had documentation that Saddam still had our weapons and could easily convert them to something larger scale. Why it never came out this way baffles me because it would have saved some embarassment on behalf of the Bush Administration, unless of course there was some fear that a terrorist organization would take one of the weapons and use it on the U.S. In any case, the WMD's were never found and it really made Bush look foolish.

5. Hitler and Saddam both are very egomaniacal. Saddam had movies made of himself. He portrayed himself in the most positive light he could. As did Hitler. Propaganda was just the first step for Hitler, though. Hitler ordered the burning of books with "non-German" values in them.

More later. I need to go.

[quoth_the_raven]

jeo- you missed the facial hair! the facial hair!

[TheDeadWalk]

But in 1941 when the Japanese attacked our Pacific seaport, THEN we did something. The lesson in this attack was that sitting out when someone with rather lofty goals of world domination is attacking everyone else could lead to disastrous results.

We did something then, because FDR, Churchill, and Stalin were in talks to bring the United States into the war against Germany, but not Japan.

But like a good teammate, Germany told Japan: "You block the new guy before he comes in", and thus the bombing of Pearl Harbor took place.

Also noteworthy is that America was in a period of isolation prior to World War 2. The American government had grown tired of war hungry Europe. It was a war here, a war there, or England and France playing Monopoly: Imperialism edition.

It was like Cliff in Dead Man on Campus, where the guy is nothing but a total obnoxious dick. You eventually just tell him to go home, stay home, and don't fucking call me unless you want some cotton. We've got enough to deal with in our lives, and we did. But every country has its breaking point, and after the war progressed, the United States had hit it.

They had done what they could in WW2 by cutting off Japan from trade completely, but that just evolved into Japan cutting into other countries and taking their shit for free. Something needed to be done, and the United States shut off its "isolationism".

We haven't stopped since, and I feel that within the next 10 years if it doesn't stop, our country has the potential to become viewed at as perhaps the next facist country, only we'll murder your people and leaders if you don't want to be democratic nations.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
jeo- you missed the facial hair! the facial hair!

Yeah...it's the one thing that Saddam outdid Hitler on and I never even mentioned it, huh? So which one screams dictator more, the booger guard or the handlebar?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
We did something then, because FDR, Churchill, and Stalin were in talks to bring the United States into the war against Germany, but not Japan.

But like a good teammate, Germany told Japan: "You block the new guy before he comes in", and thus the bombing of Pearl Harbor took place.

Also noteworthy is that America was in a period of isolation prior to World War 2. The American government had grown tired of war hungry Europe. It was a war here, a war there, or England and France playing Monopoly: Imperialism edition.

It was like Cliff in Dead Man on Campus, where the guy is nothing but a total obnoxious dick. You eventually just tell him to go home, stay home, and don't fucking call me unless you want some cotton. We've got enough to deal with in our lives, and we did. But every country has its breaking point, and after the war progressed, the United States had hit it.

They had done what they could in WW2 by cutting off Japan from trade completely, but that just evolved into Japan cutting into other countries and taking their shit for free. Something needed to be done, and the United States shut off its "isolationism".

We haven't stopped since, and I feel that within the next 10 years if it doesn't stop, our country has the potential to become viewed at as perhaps the next facist country, only we'll murder your people and leaders if you don't want to be democratic nations.

You have some very valid points here. How far is too far? We've been revving the war machine since 9/11/01 and haven't stopped since. People could easily say that GW is finishing Papa's work from ten years prior. But is he? Or is there some connection between Saddam and terror networks?

CNN has posted a story regarding the Russians warning us of a terror attack since before 9/11. Now it seems to be a story worth telling long after Saddam has been ousted.

Go here for that story.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by jeo4
You have some very valid points here. How far is too far? We've been revving the war machine since 9/11/01 and haven't stopped since. People could easily say that GW is finishing Papa's work from ten years prior. But is he? Or is there some connection between Saddam and terror networks?

CNN has posted a story regarding the Russians warning us of a terror attack since before 9/11. Now it seems to be a story worth telling long after Saddam has been ousted.

Go here for that story.

Too far is indeed a good question. Perhaps it takes place when hard lined diplomacy fails. France and Germany and several other countries that oppose the Iraq war have felt that the United Nations 'handcuffing' of Iraq by halting all Northern and Southern travel via no fly zones, and heavily limiting Saddam's major cash crop of oil so he could only sell it on a limited basis, and not the world market was a great start.

Could he have distributed a terrorist attack? I don't believe so, considering he and his country was as broke as a joke. Saddam also doesn't have hard lined Islamic followers. He's more of a war monger, preferring missiles and tanks. He's more of a modern threat than one of strategic operations and tactics such as hijacking American airplanes. The people killing themselves in Iraq to kill American soldiers today are doing it because they feel they must; as if it is the end of the road for them anyways. They are scared of the American government.

What should have been done, was a complete makeover of Iraq with Saddam still in charge. A "Queer eye for the straight guy" if you will. Before you shout "nay", look and see that it has worked before. The Emperor of Japan, Hitler's honorary "Aryan Brother" if you will, who set war against the world in favor of facist supremacy was not taken out of power after the Japanese surrendered. (!!)

We knew that if we took that Emperor out of power, all hell would break loose, and knowing the suicidal Japanese, hell yes it would have. He was left in power because the people did not feel that he was a puppet to the United States government, when he was. All orders and diplomacy came through him, by way of negotiations with the United States government. His entire army was banished, weapons and military equipment was de-activated, and he was made to sign a treaty that he would never assemble an army again.

What happened was that the Japanese people followed their Emperor's orders, and the once war hungry country became economy focused with the help of several powerful Japanese politicians and economists who strongly felt that "Japan had lost the war, but won peace." With this co-cooperation with the Emperor behind big brother America, Japan was in the top five economies in the world by 1980.

And yeah, I'm sure Saddam had no problem with Osama Bin Laden, because 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', but thats as far as it went. Those two cannot co-exist in the thirst for power. Saddam will not work with Islamists, he fought a seven year war against Iran to not have to answer to Ayatollah Khomeni.