Bush Godwins himself ... again
Thursday, May 15th, 2008 - 1:15pm
This time equating Iran with the Nazis.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In somewhat related news, Olberman's latest rant is possibly his best. Though that might be too easy given that Bush really ass-raped himself with the whole "I gave up golf for the troops" comment.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
This clip is quite interesting. The assertion that Hitler started the Second World War because Chamberlain was a big girl is just false. I really wish Anglo-American history would stop the baseless assertion that if Hitler was confronted the conflict would not have started.
I know the President is playing the game but there is part of me very glad that the Good Friday Agreement happened before 9/11 occurred.
SteamID: Coyler
Xbox Live: Coyler
The conflict would have started certainly, since the alternative to appeasement was confrontation, the Nazi war machine would have been much less effective and likely caused much less damage. Meanwhile the diplomatic route allowed my grandfathers homeland to be conquered by invaders. Speculation goes both ways on what would have happened, but surely without the Czech tanks factories his ability to make war would have been severely reduced.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
Hitler also didn't expect Britain and France to go over war over Poland because they backed down over Czecho. On the other hand, he was going to go to war anyway once his forces were more powerful. So it was more a question of timing than anything else, from what I've read. The Czech arms factories certainly helped him. But I agree that it's a much more complex argument than "appeasement caused WW2."
By the way, McCain has been caught changing his tune. From a TV interview a while back in which he was asked about dealing with Hamas:
"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Also, given that we successfully negotiated with Sunni insurgents in Iraq, it's a pretty odd argument for Bush to make at this stage that we don't negotiate with terrorists.
That's why I found the clip interesting. I'm not sure that everyone who invokes appeasement is quite sure what they are talking about.
As for the Allies, without the Soviet Union or the USA and their considerable resources, stopping or blunting the Wehrmacht is also a bit of a fallacy. Germany completely dwarfed every other nation militarily in 1938 and despite all of Churchill's bluff and bluster Britain hung on only by its fingernails and Hitler's foolish fixation with communists. Its sobering to remember that the same 6th that marched down the streets of Paris was only defeated, nearly 4 years later and the first one the Wehrmacht suffered, after 6 armies surrounded Paulus and his men in Stalingrad and shelled them for nearly 2 months.
We discussed this before and I can't find the bloody thread but the basic jist of my arguement was Britain and France we happy to give up Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland with the hope that it would sate Hitler's land lust because they we also aware how militarily week they were to Germany that any other option was really just wishful thinking. Its worth noting that the Allies by the end of the war were happy to do the same to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Serbia, Albania and Bulgaria for almost the exact same reason.
Lets just be clear here, talking to Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah isn't anywhere close to the above on any level and drawing parallels is either foolish or deceitful.
SteamID: Coyler
Xbox Live: Coyler
Absolutely. The argument that Britain "appeased" Germany in 1938 is about as valid as saying that Greece did the same. Neither was in anything approaching a reasonable position to affect the outcome one way or another. Had Hitler not attacked Russia, even with an overtly hostile England, Western Europe would still be under Fascist rule.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
I seem to remember us staying out of the war until Japan drew us into it, so maybe in this one unique situation there were more than two completely opposite options.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
Actually, there was a pretty serious divide in the US at the time regarding which side we should back in that war. FDR wanted to back the English, but there was considerable political will from the opposition to back the Nazis against the Communists. Entering the war early without a causis beli (e.g.: Germany's declaration of war) would have left the matter unsettled and possibly resulted in a divided nation going into a major conflict.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Great video clip of some blowhard named Kevin James getting ripped a new ass on Hardball. Note to folks who are going to use the whole Hitler thing: learn some fcuking history.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Yet another reason for Bush not to mention Hitler.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
That's the clip I linked above, you filthy skimmer!
SteamID: Coyler
Xbox Live: Coyler
I love that clip!
Mathews - "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong? What happened in 1938-39?"
James - "He did things that helped Hitler. He was an appeaser. He allowed Hitler to do what he did."
f*cking brilliant! Its the typical cyclical sourcing. If enough people say it, its got to be true because they can all reference each other and thus make the appearance of in depth research.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
My favorite moment was when the other gentleman said, "Kevin, when you're in a hole, stop digging."
Fletcher wrote:
I'm surprised he didn't accuse Chris Matthews of being elitist for knowing history.
"If you don't understand a word, don't use it." I'm sorely tempted to pull that one out in the next evolution thread...
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
I'd argue that point, because we most certainly didn't stay out of the war, we simply didn't commit troops to the battle until Japan attacked or military base, we simply supplied the armament that were being used against the Axis soldiers. And what Paleocon said.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
only if I get to use it everytime that a word has a "new" meaning, like gay, Liberal, conservative, right wing, faschist, socialist etc...
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
Only the first one was redefined by liberals...
I was not directing that at you, but at people who insist that evolution doesn't actually mean what scientists define it to me. I didn't intend to single anyone out, especially not you, who I know to be a fun guy to debate with.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.