On 8/1/07, Alex Eckelberry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Respectfully, it's the height of sophistry to compare a two-bit, > third-rate, third-world dictator running a country that was in tatters > with Hitler and Germany; and by inference, Churchill to Bush. > > Alex >
In tatters why? Because he had invaded a neighboring country and got slapped? Not that it stopped him from collecting cash from the UN gang, but he was also under severe sanctions. Respectfully, I'm not comparing men, I'm comparing situations and consequences. Churchill is certainly no Bush. That said, Saddam could have certainly been a Hitler - and they had a shared interest, of sorts. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
