Wouldn't the philosophy of Hitler basicly be an agressive form of globalisation? He wanted to turn the world into one state through invasion, and, I assume, create different levels of humanity- the Aryans as the overlords, say, and the Poles as the working class. Everyone else would be in the middle, and the Jews wouldn't exist. I think that the Jews were persecuted mainly because Hitler needed someone to hate, and it was such a minority group that he could kill them all. If he had decided that the French were abominations, he couldn't have destroyed them all, mainly because there were so many of them that it would take forever, and then _no one_ would want to join his great big state.
War in Iraq.
In my opinion, the war in Iraq was a good thing, and not following the glorious tradition set forth by Hitler. While there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, something still needed to be done. It doesn't do to have insane dictators sitting on little pockets of Hate.
Matrin Luther King said something, once, and I can't remember exactly what it was ( I have enough trouble trying to remember when WW2 started). But essentially what he said was that where one man isn't free, the freedom of all men is threatened. The people of Iraq were not free (although it is dubious as to whether they are really free at the moment, given the collapse of their society) and the Bush administration went in there to free them. They were being the International policemen, and no one in the world likes the policemen. Without them, there would be anarchy, but we all hate them while they protect us.
You could possibly say that the reason why we think that the old regime in Iraq was evil is because it is different to us. However, I don't mind forcing them to conform to our Western standards if it means that there is one less insane person sitting on a throne.
Bookmarks