user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Firstly, I welcome your question. It allows one to respond to your misunderstandings of the 1930's Germany comparison.
What is being compared with Iran / North Korea is NOT that they pose the same level of threat as Nazi Germany did to Europe.
On the contrary, the comparison is not to do with that. It is more to do with policy making- what could work and what is likely to not work. The comparison doesn't stem from ideas that 'Iran is Nazi Germany' or 'North Korea is Nazi Germany. It is more basically an issue of 'What policies should we use toward North Korea and Iran? Should we repeat the policies used against Nazi Germany? Why not?'
I am pleased you have asked this question, as it allows space for the issue to be clarified. It is not about painting these two nations as being of the same level of Nazi Germany in terms of capabilities- what it is about is what policies to not use- that is, if there was anything to learn from past experiences, including that of World War 2. It is about the risks of appeasement. The major link between the past experience and present day predicaments are similar- the controversy of whether giving provocative states what they want based on mere promises that they will no longer be provocative, - and also the naive assumption that other countries are only provocative because they are being defensive.
Therefore, a comparison is simply made, out of a genuine concern, not to repeat past mistakes and misjudgements. Offering North Korea and/or Iran benefits if they promise to halt their provocative behaviour can a) actually help them progress toward their aggressive agenda, and b) Does litle to discourage (if anything, offering beneifits encourages) such rogue behaviour.
Is this good, or do you want me to keep going?
^So is Iran Nazi Germany or Vietnam?
skylab- it is not a comparison in which Iran 'IS' Nazi Germany as I have stated above. Nor is it whatever other country. This is an issue of policy making. To imply that appeasement did not work on Nazi Germany and may not work on Iran, DOES NOT equate to implying that the Iranian stand-off is exactly the same as Nazi Germany, or that Iran is Nazi Germany. I will repeat, it is NOT about saying Iran is exactly this or that country. It is about pondering policy making- which types have been proven to be risky in past situations, and would therefore be treated with caution in other situations. It is as simple as that.
However simple it is, I believe repeating it again would be beneficial in case it is not clear yet. The issue is not one of saying Iran is exactly the same as Nazi Germany was. It is simply a metter of questioning what policies should be used on Iran, and which ones may prove to be risky. One that is risky is that of appeasement. It failed on Nazi Germany (this is a mere example of the failure of the policy, but the focus is not Nazi Germany, but rather the policy in question. Nazi Germany is not the focus, it is merely an example of the policy previously attempted).
^Yes, but since war and appeasement are both risky, and multiple wars are a big risk, you seem to be saying that fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran all at once is the lesser evil. Even for a superpower, that's a big assumption.
If you're going to compare Nazi Germany to present-day Iran, it is absolutely crucial that you include the contexts of those two different situations in the analysis.
Every comparison one makes between the two is only valid to the degree it is unaffected by the differences in context.
No, I am opposed to war. I am in favour of diplomacy that is not appeasement.
Applerod- once again, it is not an issue of comparing Iran to Nazi Germany- but rather reflecting on what policy NOT to make with Iran, as has been flawed in the past, and that is appeasement.
Yea, we're pretty much on the same page. The middle ground is the way to go.
My previous comment was just an attempt to establish a sound way of comparing similar policies under different circumstances.
Good discussion.
Voted : No, this is just another big lie from the neocons who want to create the fear of an external threat
There is a tendency to generalize that which affirms their position and ignore that which negates it, thus they take complex situations that have many different factors involved and set them forth as if they justify their beliefs.
They tend to ignore formal rule sof logic, causation, etc. and operate under sweeping assumptions that tend not to hold true (e.g., what is suitable/ not-suitable for one conflict will be suitable/ not- suitable for another, regardless of specifics of the conflict).
Cathexis- so you are suggesting just because appeasement failed with Nazi Germany, that it might not fail with Iran and North Korea.
But it DID fail with North Korea.
|
|
