Always thought he wrote interesting editorials. This in the one for April 7th's Newsweek. Fareed Zakaria April 7, article Makes an interesting point that - Perle and Wolfowitz - were wrong in arguing that an Iraq invasion would be like liberating France. He thinks a better analogy might be Stalin's Russia. Where even though most people were against Stalin, Stalin used nationalism effectively to get some to fight willingly. (Many were coherced into fighting) Quote from article at the end is the most interesting. Many Iraqis will celebrate Saddam¡¯s fall. Others will be angered by a foreign invasion. But most will be on guard to see what happens after the war. That is when America will vindicate itself, if it truly helps to build a new Iraq. After all, the Germans and the Japanese did not cheer in 1945 but they were grateful by 1955. America will win the Iraqis over not by what it does in the next five weeks but rather in the next five years.
The writer makes an interesting point. However, comparing the circumstances of WWII to this war is classic apples and oranges. Not only were we initially hesitant to get involved in WWII, but we only became fully engaged after a direct Japanese attack on our military. Moreover, Hitler had already annexed and begun to occupy other parts of Europe, with a military force that was well capable of world domination. Circumstances could not be more different today. First, the war against Iraq has come about with no substantiated threat by Iraq to any nation. Second, it has been 100% contrived, planned, and implemented by the U.S. administration. Third, Saddam poses absolutely no threat to the established world order nor its future, except if you really buy into the theory that he might supply radical terrorists with weapons that he might have...which seems doubtful because he would probably be the first one they would kill with such weapons. In comparing WWII to Gulf War II, I cannot think of more polar examples of reasons to fight a war.
Think Stalin, after all Stalin is Saddam's hero (no BS, he worships Joseph). 1942: Joseph Stalin has just finished murdering and/or starving 30 million of his own citizens. He has eviscerated the Soviet military by executing or sending to the gulags what few competent and professional soldiers he had. In June Hitler invaded. Were the Nazis' welcomed as liberators by the Russians? Hell no. They may have hated Stalin but they HATED HITLER MORE. I am NOT comparing Bush to Hitler (not yet anyway). But there is a historical precendent. Just becuase the people hate their leader doesn't mean they can't hate the invading hordes more.
Bush and Hitler (not YET anyway? What does THAT mean? Do you have even the vaguest notion who and what Hitler was?) And do you have any clue at all about the War in the East in 1942? Tried reading a book? American administration "contrived" the war? (Yes, Dick, and then we'll kill them all, steal their oil and make them the 51st state! mwahahahahaha!) What an odd, sick little world you guys occupy.
Well, how is this a point of debate? Can't you at least admit that absent Bush's insistence, there would not now be a war in Iraq? Good Lord.