[schu]

Summary

1914ist - edge of the abyss 1938ist - appeasers 1942ist - carry on to victory 1948ist - long term cold war approach, minimal preemption 1972ist - peacenik

Which one are you?

[headsonpikes]

An argument could be made for say, 68 AD - modernizing, civilizing Romans and Hellenists versus crazed zealots, and in the Middle East.

[headsonpikes]

An argument could be made for say, 68 AD - modernizing, civilizing Romans and Hellenists versus crazed zealots, and in the Middle East.

[filbert]

All of the above.

None of the above.

We're seeing the feeling of inevitability driven by human frailty, misunderstanding, and stupidity of 1914, the head-in-the-sand appeasement of 1938, and the religious element of, well, most crisis periods throughout human history.

But this time, it is different from any other crisis. Combine the destructive potential of nuclear weapons and the extremist Islamist disregard for all human life.

This will not end soon, easily, or well.

[Jim Noble]

whatever year we think it is, are poised on the edge of an abyss that nobody saw coming

Nobody?

I see it as clear as day.

[Porterville]

One more point... it is a global civil war lashing out against union.

[Billthedrill]

Ouch. Reasoning by analogy is always more analogy than reasoning. It's useful enough in a descriptive sort of model but it breaks down when you try to turn it into a predictive model, because just because two things look alike doesn't mean that they are alike.

It's 2006.

[Joe 6-pack]

I prefer to think of myself as an August 6, 1945ist. As Lew Grizzard would've said, "Time to crank up the Enola Gay!"

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

376 & 406 and years following: Visigoths allowed by Valens to settle within the Roman Empire and large numbers of barbarians cross the Rhine but many are not assimilated
= 1960s and years following: Large numbers of muslims move into Europe and Britain but many are not assimilated

378: the defeat of Roman army by Visigoths
= 1962: France, trying to cling to a colonial way of life, is defeated by muslim terrorists in Algeria and surrenders in the most ignominious fashion possible

410: Sack of Rome by barbarians
= 2005: Burning of Paris by barbarians

434-453: Attila conducts a reign of terror across Europe; many Germanic tribes support the Huns
= 1990s-present: Islamic fascists conduct terror operations; many Western Leftists support the terrorists

451: Roman-led coalition defeats Attilla’s barbarian force at Chalons, but does not follow up for complete victory
= 1991 US-led coalition defeats Saddam’s army and pushes it out of Kuwait, but does not follow up for complete victory

400s generally: Roman civilization becomes increasingly degenerate; military ranks in the legions filled increasingly by barbarians and less by old line Roman families
= 1960s to present: Western civilization becomes increasingly degenerate as a popular culture generated by New York/Los Angeles/Western European liberal hedonists becomes the largest influence in the lives of most young people; Europe unable to sustain effective military forces.

ca 450s: Romano-British forces led by Arthur defeats barbarians in Britain at Mons Badonicus, barbarians take decades to recover
= 2001-present: Coalition of civilized nations led by George W. Bush defeats Islamic fascists in Afghanistan and then in post-Saddam Iraq

[napscoordinator]

The only time I was nervous for the United States was from 1976 to 1980. That in my opinion was the worst it could get. It was truly an awful time in terms of the world. Of course I was ages 7 to 11 during that time and only saw the news of those blind folded people being unloaded off the plane. It was scary to me for some reason. Otherwise we are doing fine and will be. Why are you guys acting like it is the end of the world. It is certainly not even close. All of us will die of a regular death. Stop scaring people with nonsence (not specifically you just all the posters.)

[Question_Assumptions]

I think that the current age is, in various aspects, 1938, 1942, and 1972. I don't think that's contradictory, since no time in history perfectly repeats any one other time and the reason why I think it's 1972 is very different than what the author of the article thinks.

It's 1938, in that we are on the verge of another World War with appeasement wasting opportunities to stop it. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's only a matter of time before the Middle East gets lit up like a Christmas Tree by nuclear bombs and nobody seems to care about stopping Iran from getting nukes. It's 1942 in that we've had our Pearl Harbor and it did partially wake us up and get us involved early. Had the Islamofascists been smart, they wouldn't have attacked America. Of course if they were smart, they wouldn't be Islamofascists, either.

Now, I also think it's 1972 and that's potentially as dangerous as 1938. Why? Because in 1972, Americans were fatigued by the Vietnam War, peaceniks wanted to bring the troops home immediately, and we were standing on the edge of a shift in politics that would give the Democrats control of all three branches of government with disasterous results. And this is something I wish conservatives would attack in the MSM orthodoxy.

Make no mistake about it, the pull out of Vietnam and subsequent Democrat actions in the foreign policy realm were a disaster that led to the deaths of millions of people (Vietnam, Cambodia, the Middle East, Africa) as they let the dominoes fall and simply let the Communists take over various countries. They let the Sandanistas take Nicaragua, the Khmer Rouge take Cambodia, the PLO take Lebanon, and on and on and millions died and millions more suffered for it, despite their claims of compassion and caring for others. Ol' Jimmy "Apeasement" Carter responded to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by boycotting the Olympics. Jimmy green-lighted Iraq attacking Iran. Jimmy set the standard of "land for 'peace'" with his deal with Egypt. And Jimmy and the Dems would have let the Cold War go on forever. Jimmy and the Democrats were a disaster for just about everyone. That's what you get when you think the Republican is so bad that it's "time for a change" and don't think about what the change is.

So, yes, I also fear that it's 1972 in the sense that fickle Americans, tired of the war and believing the MSM propaganda about lies and corruption, will put Democrats in charge of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008, and that would be the same sort of disaster that Jimmy was. For all his flaws (being a rapist among them), conservatives were fairly lucky with Bill Clinton and Dick Morris' "triangulation". We got welfare reform out of him, NAFTA out of him, and he was fairly harmless to the economy (thanks, in part, to a Republican House). True, he could have been Jimmy II had things gotten worse faster, but he is not the worst we can get from the Dems. Another Jimmmy or Howard Dean is.

[exit82]

1938.

Hoping for an August, 1945 concerning Iran.

[No.6]

I know we're not there yet, but I'm looking forward to the time when we can all agree it's time to be 1571ers.

[woofie]

Bump