"Everything you said in your post about Bush is what they said about Winston Churchill in 1938, no one believed him, everyone thought he was a fear monger, but at the end of the day he was right about everything, but it was too late, all of Europe was embroiled in a war... this is most remarkable how history is repeating itself..."
I appreciate your analogy, although I don't completely agree with its conclusions. Germany in 1933-38 was a nation-state, albeit weakened by the Treaty of Versailles and the depression. It had all the power and abilities a nation state can foster...centralized government, borders, economic policy, generally consistent nationalistic/ethnic heritage.If you are analogizing the danger of an emerging Nazi Germany to Iran or another nation-state, the analogy might hold better than if Germany were compared to the stateless muslim terrorist danger. Granted, the danger is real but is our means of combating it the most effective way? Is Iraq the place to squander (my word) men, money and equipment when a very large part of that struggle involves sectarian rifts that are not connected to the muslim terrorist threat?
Many who oppose Iraq agree that there is a true threat out there which must be fought. But Iraq is not that threat, or is the wrong place to take the stand against the threat.
Spain was fascist in 1939 too. What if the U.S. had gotten stuck fighting in Spain against fascism while Germany grew stronger. Wouldn't this have eventually weakened our ability to face the ultimate danger? |
