A major distinguishing factor of Hitler's wars was that they were wars of conquest. Absent such wars of conquest led by Bush, and also without death camps, slaver labor, almost continual statements of hatred for certain ethnic or religious groups, ect. the comparison is much more inaccurate than accurate, more inflammatory then illuminating, and generally over the top and ridiculous. You would not need a near exact copy of Hitler to make the comparison reasonably, but the difference here is night and day. All the things that make Hitler stand out as particularly horrible are absent in Bush. All the attributes that are similar are common.
I agree Bush is not Hitler. However, there are comparisons that can be made........easily.
For an example, you buy the party line that the US invaded Iraq to free the Iraqis from Saddam. Much of the world doesn't buy that line. Hitler said that he invaded the surrounding countries to free the Germanic peoples in those country; that they were suffering under heavy handed discrimination. Most of the world didn't buy that line either.
The Nazis strongly promoted German nationalism. If you did not support the war effort, you were not a good German. The GOP strongly promotes American nationalism. If you do not support the war and American troops in Iraq, then you are not a good American.
The Nazis said that the rest of the world was jealous of Germany and wanted to keep it from realizing its full potential by limiting it through treaties and other global legislation. The GOP/Bush makes a similar argument when it encourages us to retreat from our commitments to the UN, the Geneva Conventions, the Kyoto Protocol, the World Court etc.
I could go on but there isn't much point to doing so. You will refuse to see what is apparent to many. The US has taken a very hard turn to the right. Are we now Nazi Germany? No. Could we be? Maybe. The thing the world fears.......Nazi Germany......did not happen over night. It took at least ten years in its birthing.
ted
|
