SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (299044)9/21/2002 4:33:14 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
I don't think emotions have anything to do with this, your position was typical of European in the 30's which allowed Hitler to rise to power...

My position is not at all typical. European leaders were trying to appease Hitler who had already begun his program of annexation. Hitler had convinced the Germans that the rest of Europe presented a serious threat to the sovereignty and freedom of the German peoples. Every incident whether small or big that could be used to reinforce his argument was held up as an example. Hitler's position served two purposes.....he was terribly paranoid and Germany had suffered badly economically under the Weimar Republic and conditions had worsened during the Depression. He felt that annexation would make Germany powerful and insure its economic independence.

Eventually, he convinced the Germans that the only way Germany could survive was through preemptive strikes on its neighbors........and thus his annexation program went into the implementation stage. Other European leaders were shocked at his arrogance and his lack of concern re international censorship. Attempts were made to calm his hostilities but were to no avail, and eventually WWII erupted.

In any case, Europeans chose not to react to the aggressive actions of a hostile dictator, and went into denial after Hitler attacked and annexed several countries. That is not at all the same behavior exhibited by the US during the past ten years. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, we attacked Saddam. When bin Laden attacked the US, we responded. I believe those responses were appropriate. Therefore, how can you say that my position and the position of the US has been analogous to the behavior of the Europeans in the 30's?

At the same time, how can you say that Mr. Bush's current wish to launch a preemptive strike against Iraq is in keeping with past US foreign policy? Preemptive strikes may be appropriate when it is very clear factually that the opposing nation is preparing to attack; otherwise, a preemptive strike is considered the tool of a bully, or a paranoid dictator like Hitler.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News