Hussein comparable to Hitler?

This letter is in response to Joseph Jay-Dixon’s letter “Kraemer’s analogy inaccurate” (Nov. 4). The vital mistake in Jay-Dixon’s analysis is not the historical accuracy of his account, but that he overlooks the fact that Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler are comparable as men.

Hitler had a general arrogance and an absolute command of his citizens; Hussein recently had an election in which the results were announced before a majority of the votes had been tallied.

Perhaps Hussein is not as successful in executing his goals of immediate domination of neighboring countries, but the rationale behind his actions is similar to that of Hitler.

Hitler’s disregard for the lives of citizens is similar to that of Hussein’s; both have sacrificed the lives of innocents as simple tests of military and weaponry effectiveness. Although Hitler’s fascist regime is different from the dictatorial regime of Hussein, the men themselves are very similar.

Jay-Dixon goes on to describe the proper course of action with Hussein and Iraq. There is a point at which keeping peace is no longer the goal, but preventing perturbations becomes the focus.

Sanctions against Iraq have not slowed down the creation of a military but have placed the United States in lower esteem with the Iraqi people. Sanctions have caused only poverty and the elimination of a middle class; the sanctions caused a money loss for the people, not the government.

Hitler rose to power and convinced Germany of its need to assert its superiority by playing off the poverty and poor economic status of Germany. Sanctions and coercion have only created a platform from which Hussein can convince people of the insolence of the United States.

The question thus remains: After peaceful tactics have only made opposition to the “arrogant and demanding Western nations” stronger, what is the proper corrective measure? Somehow, peaceful demands and coercion do not seem like a reasonable solution.

David Nordsletten, junior, biomedical engineering