Failing to resist the Bush regime is the modern equivelent of the average German not resisting the Nazi’s rise to power in 1933.
“Godwinizes”? Explain please.
OK?
Godwin’s law is a joke. It’s a convenient cliche used for making fun of convenient cliches.
It’s not a “rule.” If a parallel with Nazis is relevant, thent it’s relevant. Now, Rummy’s full of shit, and his comparison is dishonest and self serving. But to declare he “lost the argument” because he mentions the Nazis is naive and self defeating.
The fact is that real people, in the real world, will hear his comparison as valid, so like it or not it needs to be engaged with and refuted, and not just dismissed with a message board eyerolling smiley.
How is his comparison supposed to make any sense? It’s not like anyone expects Saddam to return. I’m probably reading too much into his statements, but a more reasonable analogy is a scenario where the western Allies abandon Germany after WWII and it falls into the Soviet influence sphere.
Yeah, pretty lame comparison. Maybe he should’ve compared the situation to Vietnam. 
Oh come now.
Just because both Hitler and Bush listen to former pilots, both of whom are wildly optimistic to the point of being completely divorced from reality, Bush and Hitler are very much alike. For example, Hitler could deliver a speech without stumbling through it like a brain-damaged drunk.
Happy, John? You got to preemptively defend Dubya from the Meany Libruls.
-Joe
NOT alike.
Damnmit.
-Joe
One could point out that the Republicans didn’t:
- put Hitler in power
- sell him weapons
- stand idly by while he killed 50,000 of his countrymen, but invade when their oil supplies were threatened
Of course this present administration relies on knee-jerk phrases like:
‘war on terror’, ‘support our troops’ and ‘war on terror’ :rolleyes:
Sadly these worked at the last election.
Now stop that! John-boy has responded to our patient tutelage about as well as can be expected, and better than some. Frankly, I am more concerned with his unfortunate habit of offering potentially dangerous wagers, I should hate to think of him offering to auction a kidney on E-Bay to cover his gambling debts, rather than to pay a predatory orthodontist.
Originally posted by Donald Rumsfeld:
"Leaving Iraq now would be like handing **postwar ** Germany back to the Nazis, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a column published on Sunday, the third anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.
“Turning our backs on **postwar ** Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis,” he wrote in an essay in The Washington Post. "
Methinks that Mr. Rumsfeld doesn’t understand the meaning of the prefix “post”.
Yeah, he is full of it, but I think he means “Iraq was run by Bad People. And if we leave Iraq now, then a Bad People will take over again”. Without feeling the intellectual necessity to define his Bad People. Perhaps he’s trying to imply Ba’athists, or maybe he’s just spouting off. It is a statement with which I generally agree, even though the current occupiers alas only fall into the “least of myriad evils” in my opinion.
See, I agree that you are reading to much into the analogy. Of late I have detected a high degree of analogy-fascism on this board. If the shoe isn’t exactly the right size, and Cinderella has to leave the ball before she’s even met her prince.
That’s like Pol Pot and Mussolini turning up drunk to your five-year-old daughter’s birthday party with only an AK47 and a baggie of coke.
Would I be out of line to point out that the Allies did in fact leave a substantial part of Germany in the Soviet influence sphere?
Well, it all worked out OK in the end, so that’s what matters. No matter how. Long. It. Takes.
Wow, another WW2 apt comparison to today’s fuckup! Woo!
-Joe
Very apt, considering that Iran will no doubt effectively take over large chunks of whatever is still standing when we leave.
Even Republican ass-kisser David Brooks is writing that Rummy screwed the pooch. No wonder he’s getting nervous.
Wanna bet?
So letting the Soviets wear themselves out in eastern Europe for 40 years was part of the plan? Maybe we’ve got an equally devious plan for Iraq.
I don’t see why we should expect Rummy to say anything other than that we must “stay the course.” The difficulty that I see with that is that there are good courses and bad courses. Which course are we on now?
Anybody?
No, I think he said what he meant: “Leaving Iraq now would be like turning postwar Germany back over to the Nazis after we defeated them.” This seems to imply that Saddam or the Baathists would take over again, which is eight kinds of ridiculous. Perhaps he means that the result would be just as bad as letting that happen, but…
Ow, my head. This is what I get for trying to understand Rummy’s mindset.
I don’t object to Rummy’s use of postwar Germany. What I don’t quite understand is the use of the word “postwar” in reference to Iraq, since we are clearly still in the middle of a honest to goodness war. Or does Rummy not know that?
No, he doesn’t.