The latest tactic: Iraq = post-war Germany. More historical ignorance..!

[Brotherjohn]

... from the Bush administration. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usmideast8aug08,1,4341813.story?coll=la-headlines-world

The justification for taking on Iraq and staying there for some time (as being espoused by Condi Rice and others in the administration) is now that the situation is equivalent to Europe in the first part of the 2Oth century. (paraphrasing) "We HAD to go in, and we MUST now stay there for a 'generational committment'. Just as with WWI and WWII, Iraq is responsible for starting repeated wars that end up costing American lives. So, for our own security, we needed to go in and re-shape Iraq and the Mid-East."

BULL. BULL BULL BULL BULL S***!!!

To compare Iraq (or the entire mid-east, for that matter) to Europe in the early 20th century reveals astounding ignorance of the most basic historical facts Condi should have learned in high school.

MILLIONS of Europeans died in WWI, America got involved, and lost TENS OF THOUSANDS of our young men. MILLIONS of Europeans again perished in WWII, and America then lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. That did indeed require a generational committment to ensure that it would not happen again. Ironically, the development of the United Nations along with this committment succeeded in preventing such things from happening again. The U.N. succeeded in preventing Iraq from becoming an aggressive nuclear threat it might have become, when U.N. inspectors dismantled the program (after U.N.-sanctioned the use of force there) in the early 90s.

The scale of what happened (and twice) in Europe in the first part of the 20th century compeletely and utterly dwarfs anything that has happened in the Mid-East since. The Iran-Iraq war is the only thing that comes close, but that was a regional war (albeit horrible) that did not engulf us or the region or the world (we in fact sided with Iraq in the way of support). The Gulf War and the invasion of Kuwait are not even worth mentioning in the same breath, although Condi and others are clearly trying to compare these to wars in Europe in the 20th century.

Likewise, Sept. 11th IS NOT equivalent to Pearl Harbor except in the limited world-view of the neo-cons (i.e. it is only important if Americans are attacked). Millions were already dying and half of Europe was being taken over (along with large chunks of Asia) by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Japan was a formal ally of Germany in an already initiated aggressive war of world conquest, by two of the strongest military powers in the world (and Italy).

To compare this to a shadowy group of a few hundred or thousand who, basically, were armed with box-cutters and got "lucky", shows ZERO ability to view history with any sense of perspective or intelligence. Al Qaeda and Iraq were not even allied, and even if they were, neither posed or poses the kind of threat to us that the Axis powers did in 1941 (despite the "Axis of Evil" phrase). The Axis was bent on world conquest, had the ability, and were well on their way to achieving that goal.

This lame tactic is just more hype and historical revisionism by the administration in an attempt at justifying the unjustifiable.

[HawkerHurricane]

1. Well said.

Germany in 1939 had Europe's largest industry and second largest population.
Japan in 1941 had Asia's largest industry.
Germany had the worlds largest army and air force.
Japan had the third largest navy, and most modern navy.
Al Queda just has a large amount of money, and a handful of fanatics.
No comparison.
Germany and Japan could have beaten us in war.
Al Queda is reduced to desperation attacks; they are so weak they must be monsters to be noticed.

[Brotherjohn]

3. Exectly (re Al Qaeda). They are criminals committing desperate attacks.

When I say they "got lucky", I refer to the fact that they puled it off at all, but also to the fact that the Towers actually fell. If WE were luckier, perhaps only a few dozen or hundred would have died in the WTC (as with the Pentagon).

They really only have the ability to cause death and mayhem on a limited scale, in isolated instances. They are not linked to a country and have no military. As such, they are simply criminals. The worst mass-murdering criminals in history, perhaps, but still mere criminals. This does not make it any easier for their victims, but to compare them to a military empire threatening the world reveals those making the comparison to be as insane as Al Qaeda.

[FreeperSlayer]

2. Excellent post

Unfortunately, this is way too logical for your typical Repug.

[Clete]

4. Excellent post.

I am appalled at the ignorance of this administration, especially from those purportedly having MBA and Phd. after their names. I am not a college graduate and I know this and many things that they don't.

[diamond14]

5. condi also tried to compare it to the civil rights struggle here....

from her speech in Dallas...she compared the Iraqi struggle to the civil rights struggle here in the 60's-70's....IMHO, it was a REAL stretch....

bush* and his minions must be desperate to find some excuse, any excuse for their blood-lust...and everyday, as they spin away...more and more of OUR brave troops are KILLED and maimed, in the background...