Give Bush a historical precedent....

[FDRrocks]

I see many here denouncing the comparisons between Bush and Hitler. But I cannot find any other closer comparison.

Pre-emptive war (think Norwegian ports, among other things) mixed with passing the buck to the lowers (Tenet(think general Nazi policy concerning national propaganda)) mixed with general doublethink/speak in the major media.

I can think of no more relative comparison than the Nazi regime. Can you? Fill me in!

PRE-FUCKING-EMPTIVE WAR? What is that? Attack others before they attack us? On the sketchiest of factual grounds?

Welcome to the slippery slope, my friends. Personally, I don't know how to ice skate.

[RoyGBiv]

1. Churchill?

>>ducking<<

Seriously, though, the difference between Shrub's preemption doctrine and the national doctrines of recent history is simply that he is in a position to pursue it as a national leader. Churchill, prior to being Prime Minister, did essentially argue for preemptive war against Germany prior to WWI, and he was not alone. Some historians claim he and his political allies in effect brought on WWI by such arguments. (See The Pity of War).

Not that this justifies anything. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. It's just that Hitler wasn't the only one prior to Shrub to think of it positively. But Hitler's use of preemptive war discredited the concept ... until Shrub took it up again.

[FDRrocks]

4. Churchill wasn't for pre-emptive war...

He was against appeasement of Germany. I mean seriously. The militarization of the Rhineland, re-militarization of Germany far beyond the Versais treaty, taking Austria and Czech... all while Chamberlain appeased. It would've drove me nuts, in Churchill position. He had to fight just to lay mines on the coast of Norway. He certainly was an asshole but he did alot of good for the period.

[RoyGBiv]

9. Prior to WWI ...

Your examples are from a different time and different circumstances.

In the early 1900's, Churchill and his political allies argued that Germany's emerging world dominance had to be countered, that the British Empire was being directly challenged, and that a preemptive strike against Germany was the only way to ensure continued British dominance. It was in fact quite similar to arguments from BuchCo about the supposed imminent threat that Iraq posed. The main difference is that Germany was at least a world power at the time that had potential.

The problem was that Churchill was responding to something of a phantom. Germany was not then as dominant as he feared, and his arguments in favor of strengthening the British military, naval forces in particular, were based on obsolete ideas and inaccurate intelligence. Sound familiar?

Churchill's ideas were not followed wholesale, but he and his allies did succeed in maintaining a degree of tension between Britain and Germany that was a factor in the events of 1914.

[FDRrocks]

10. I concur to your points...

I am woefully ignorant on the facts of WWI. I didn't think that Churchill was of political prominence at that point.

[RoyGBiv]

11. I didn't either...

I had a history professor who turned me on to a whole set of literature about European political relations from the late 19th century up to WWII. The number of times Churchill's name popped up shocked me. Professor Stack (Stackenwalt) was a big Churchill critic, so I took that into account, but I did figure that he must have reasons for having arrived at his opinion.

Anyway, I read The Pity of War at his suggestion. It's hell to read, i.e. boring even if you are into history, but it is quite illuminating. It only deals with WWI, but it'll influence your entire view of European history from WWI through WWII.

It's actually part of why I have such a horrible fear of the long-term effects of Bush's war. What we do now influences what will happen 20 years from now, and that may be worse than we currently imagine. It certainly was to those who lived in 1917 and thought they had seen the worst that could happen.

[brainoverload]

12. ummm...

I did search "The Pity of War" as well as other tomes written by your source - Robert Fulford. Here's one tidbit I found.

"It has also been long accepted that the United States risks becoming dangerously overstretched as an empire by taking on too many global responsibilities. Wrong again, says Mr. Ferguson. The United States does not take on nearly enough. It does not commit sufficient resources to the military operations that will be needed to encourage democracy and peace, operations that only the United States can undertake (with the help of others)."

Gee whiz - sounds like a quote out of any of the arseholes in the current administration's mouths.

[RoyGBiv]

14. Pity of War - Niall Ferguson

I have no idea how you arrived at this attribution. Robert Fulford is one of Ferguson's critics.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465057128/qid=1086433383/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-0812830-3697463

Sorry. I should have including the author initially.

[morgan2]

2. dont forget

-all the machivelliesque double speak. Going to war to protect the peace, health forrests means cutting down more trees, clean skies means more pollution etc etc etc...

-using a national disaster to justify bullshit 9/11 vs the fire in the reichstag building

the comparisons go on and on.. the only reason you can't compare them is because Bush hasn't tried to exterminate a people... yet.

[FDRrocks]

6. If he actually gets elected for once...

I could very much see an Arab "Night of the Broken Glass" happening. I've already seen reports of random middle eastern people being murdered here and being called 'terrorists'.

The way the 'war on terror' (which is unwinnable, in my opinion, since terrorism has always been around) is being conducted is very condusive towards an anti-arab sentiment.

RESIST THIS BULLSHIT!

[MrSlayer]

3. Bill Maher's reasons why Chimp is no Hitler.

Hitler was an evil genius, Chimp is an evil moron.
Hitler was a decorated combat soldier, Chimp was an AWOL punkass.
Hitler got more votes than his opponent, Chimp did not.

[FDRrocks]

7. Hitler was appointed...

and only won the vote due to propaganda. In the cases of Austria and Poland the populous oppose war. He perfected the method of manipulating the populous to his own ends, winning over 2 countries without bloodshed and then taking Poland at a relatively small expense, while convincing the populous of Germany that the Polish were in fact the ones who refused peace b/c they couldn't negotiate within the TWENTY FOUR GODDAMNED HOUR period he alloted them.

I defy the point that Hitler was a genius. He made many stupid decisions. I think he was just a megalomaniac.

[unblock]

5. bush WISHES he were hitler

hitler was truly evil psychopath, but he was very effective at what he set out to do.
shrub is a truly evil psychopath, but he is remarkably inept at what he set out to do.

[FDRrocks]

8. His cabinet

Many of which subscribe to the PNAC agenda. They are the real foe.

[brainoverload]

13. it's possible

that shrub is just a repeat of Andrew Johnson - the wrong man at the wrong time. Johnson had some good instincts that got subsumed by his prejudices the minute things got the least bit dicey.

Never mind - as soon as I wrote that Johnson had some good instincts my analogy fell apart.

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

15. But America is the good guys