Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (122135)	12/26/2003 5:00:34 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

if you're going to prematurely invoke Godwin's Law in painting as nazis some contemporary party, then the mantle of Hitler fits far better on your hee-roe Dubya than it does on sad old Saddam Let's see.. You're saying that the Bush Administration is more comparable to Hitler's totalitarian Nazis, than Saddam's Baathist government was? Do you REALLY want to go down this road offering such a ludicrous and easily refuted assertion marcos? Or would you care to withdraw your comments?? We can always ask you where Bush's version of the Enabling Act is, and how it's preventing Democrats from serving in Congress.. Or we could ask why Bushites haven't burned down the Capitol yet, as the Reichstag was burned by the Nazis in 1933.. As for the comparison to the Rhineland, it's VERY sound. When Hitler violated the cease fire that ended WWI, and re-invaded the Rhineland, the Western Allies had the authority to confront him with military force, if not re-occupying Germany proper. That's what happens with the loser violates a cease-fire.. It means that the victors have the right to re-initiate hostilities against the loser... France and Britain could have legitimately taken this path in 1936.. But they would have faced a similar situation to what the US faced with Saddam. Hitler would have only been "contained" to the extent that he wanted to be contained. He would have CONSTANTLY sought to undermine and disable his opponents, possibly even forming an alliance with the Soviets... At the very least, he would have continued to depend upon heighten German nationalism to reject the pressure that the Allies were placing upon the German people, and this would have increased their resentment towards France and Britain.. And it wouldn't have ended until one side or the other "blinked". It was the refusal of France and Britain to confront Hitler, who freely admitted he would have retreated had they done so, which encouraged him and directly led to the later occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and eventually the invasion of Poland. To NOT understand the power of intimidation, as well as the degree to which fools will seek to appease aggression and "buy time", is to lack the tools to perform strategic analysis, let alone basic social psychology. Hawk