Did you know what NAZI Germany called it's Blitzkrieg? "SHOCK AND AWE"?
Thanks to those who answered constructively. For those of you who do not know, history repeats itself. It is only to those vigilant enough to ask the hard questions that can escape the cycle or even soften the blow. Bush is not Hitler, or even like Hitler, the reference was to wake you up to the possibility that attrocities can happen again. Will Bush go down in the history books as a controversial president who liberated the iraqi's and spearheaded the fight on terror, or the president who blundered into the most expensive foreign relations crisis of all time? I don't know, either is possible. For those of you who think I'm a radical liberal, you should go read up on constructive forums and the role of the devils advocate. We should all put our mindless partisanship and prehashed ideological leanings aside and focus on the issues that effect the people.
Why did Britain and France declare war on Germany thus starting WW2?
Nazi Germany was expansionest but it was expanding eastwards - taking over the Slavic countries and heading towards Russia. Are we to believe that the Brits and French - the two biggest imperialist powers in the world - were concerned for the welfare of East Europeans and Russians. Surely not. So what strategic interet then did they have in seeing the Nazis stopped. If I'm not mistaken, Hitler only oredered the Nazi westward invasions AFTER the start of WW2 - in other words AFTER Britain and France declared war on the Nazis - not the other way around. And while there was no doubt the Nazis were a brutal bunch, there worst excesses were towards Jews and Slavic people. They were not especially repressive in the Northern and Western countries they invaded and occupied (Holland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium). Even France - the main proponent of the harsh conditions Germany was subjected to under the Treaty of Versailles - experienced relatively little brutality at the hands of the Nazis. Irrespective of who was morally right or wrong - Britain and France were technically the aggressors who triggered WW2!
If America would have remained isolationist and not entered WWII, what would the world be like today?
Hitler wanted Britain on his side for very good reasons. We are the most invaded Island in the world and are descended from some of the most brutal cultures who invaded and settled here. He probably would have just tried to stop us interferring with his invasion plans. He had tried to basically get consent from Britain to invade Poland. The auxiliary military units would have destroyed a Nazi force invading Britain. Auxiliary units were trained to become terrorists and attack the invading/occupying army, recruit and train more for the same. During the Iran/Iraq war, when US and UK supported Saddam Hussein and sold him chemical weapons which he used on the Kurds, Iraqi officers came to Britain to train to use this auxiliary method in the event of an invasion. You could see it happen when we invaded Iraq this time....Iraqi forces went guerilla as soon as they new they were going to lose and then start a war of covert destruction. You can see that method in action every day on the news. If America hadn't been bombed at Pearl Harbour, they would have stayed out of it. America was already involved with it's own Eugenics program of compulsory sterilization and internment way before the war. Eugenics was at the heart of Hitler's master race idea and many in America had equally bigoted ideas. How long ago was it that racial integration was forbidden in the US? Oh Yeah, there are still colleges where inter racial relationships are forbidden, aren't there? I expect that the rest of the world would have much healthier diets and terrorism would be much rarer. Vietnam would not have happened and many more Jews, gypsies and Freemasons would have been slaughtered by the Nazis. I think that Nazism would still have destroyed itself.
How come liberals can't see that Trump is right to condemn violence on many sides? Aren't there always several sides to conflicts, i.e. racists vs lefties, Jews vs Nazis, the US vs Al Qaeda, and so on?
What’s appalling to me about the OP’s question is how they have politicized this issue. “How come LIBERALS can’t see….”Republican Senator Cory Gardner called out Trump specifically on this issue and said Trump was wrong and he should be condemning the right wing hate groups and Nazis and white supremecists.House Speaker Paul Ryan waited a day and then said Trump was wrong.Corporate Executives who were Republican and serving on Trump White House Advisory Boards specifically resigned over this claim.White House Advisor Gary Cohn nearly quit over this comment and had to be talked in to staying by other staff.Jeff Flake condemned Trump for this statement.Lindsay Graham said that Trump took a step back by insisting there is moral equivalency and “both sides are to blame” here.There are plenty of Republican leaders who publicly called out Trump on this issue. There are even more independents and moderates who wouldn’t call themselves “liberal” who called out Trump on this and said he was wrong.The OP by saying it’s just liberals ignores both the truth but also uses this dispute divisively, by implying that liberals just don’t get it and everyone else agrees with Trump. No, here’s what Trump and Trump supporters don’t get: almost no-one agrees with his claim of there were fine people on both sides other than Trump supporters (and not even most of them agree with that).Additionally, the OP’s claim (that there are multiple sides to every fight or conflict) is just plain wrong except on a very simplistic level. When that neo-nazi got in his car and drove over dozens of people killing Heather Heyer, those individuals were engaging in peaceful behavior. There was no “conflict” it was just a repugnant, hating, racist murderer seeking to kill individuals. If a woman is walking down the street and it dragged in to an alley and raped, is she guilty of that because, well, there are two sides to any conflict. I mean, (sarcasm alert here), she did try to fight back and even got in a couple of punches before she was thrown to the ground by her rapist. Or that home assailant who snuck in to your house and kidnapped one of your kids to use as a sex slave—I guess you were the other side of the conflict because you insisted on locking your door and having a cute underage daughter—your fault dude just as much as the kidnapper/pedofile!
Why do liberals equate Trumps immigration policies to the Holocaust?
This is a strategy prescribed by the Frankfurt School of marxism, specifically by Herbert Marcuse, but also by other Frankfurt School scholars — anything and anybody they oppose is automatically characterized as “Hitler”, “Nazi”, etc. You might think this is a knee-jerk reaction, but it is not. It is carefully derived in their works, they propose that anything but marxism is fascist, Nazi, Hitler-like. Of course the strategy is effective, because normal decent people have a very negative image of Hitler (rightfully so), and do not study details of politics much, therefore are taken by this propaganda. It is also a part of a carefully woven propaganda of World War II, strongly supported by Russia, claiming that the Soviet Russia was the main opponent of Nazi Germany, while in reality, Soviet Russia was Germany’s ally from 1922, the Treaty of Rapallo, then Soviet Russia helped Hitler rise to power, by preventing German communists from forming alliance with social democrats that could stop Hitler, and finally, by helping Hitler start the war, in forming a military alliance with Nazi Germany in invasion and partition of Central Europe in 1939. Here you can watch the joint German-Russian military parade after successful joint invasion of Poland.