Only one similar paralell vis-a-vis Bush and Winnie:
Churchill understood, like a great many of his contemporaries did not, that there was no accomodation with Nazism to be made (none that was desireable, in any case), and so, he determined the only course of action available to him; resistance. Bush has reached (almost) the same conclusion vis-a-vis radical Islam.
The major difference, of course, is that Bush has made the mistake of not understanding that the way to peace with the Islamic world is a systematic destruction of the Islamic system and world view, making it apparent that it is bankrupt morally, socially, economically, politically, but to attempt to “save” it with enlightened reason, “democracy” and charity.
Churchill did not fall into that trap: he realized that Nazism could only be completely discredited and overcome by abject defeat, which entailed the total destruction of Germany. The Nazis would have held on forever if the German people had not been reduced to an existance of incredible suffering, and the same is true of Islamic fundamentalism.
Until people are drinking puddle water and picking undigested oats from horse dung for susentance, they will not begin to question the fundamental viability of their current system. Without that impetus, they will never make the great mental leap (and then muster the physical courage required) to change their circumstances, and perhaps, put their energies and devotion into something far more peaceful and productive.
Just my $0.02
I wanted to buy this when I saw it in a book store a few months ago, but I already had 3 in hand (I still have over 2 dozen unopened books to read).
Now seeing the replies on here, I’m hesitant to buy it now.
I think you are absolutely right. We have terrible things to come, I wonder if we have to guts to prevail.
This article is a mess, but it does make one think back to the days of Churchill. He was a flawed man, a magnificent man.
Just my opinion, but Bush has good instincts where terrorism is concerned, but his basic concerned inner man and Christian ideals conflict with what needs to be done. He needs a little more Old Testament in his backbone.
As our President, he needs to understand and stand up for our laws and Constitution without getting sidetracked with concern for the oppressed, since as a nation, we cannot take on all the poor of the world. If we give away that shining light on the hill of Reagan, then we join the darkness.
vaudine
The major difference, of course, is that Bush has made the mistake of not understanding that the way to peace with the Islamic world is a systematic destruction of the Islamic system and world view, making it apparent that it is bankrupt morally, socially, economically, politically, but to attempt to “save” it with enlightened reason, “democracy” and charity.
These are V-E-R-Y good points, but remember that most of the world has its collective heads up their collective butts, and considers Bush a rabid warmonger as it is.
The world is now a much softer wussified entity than it was, full of chowderheads too stupid to realize that Islam is not their friends. Let's face it, Bill Mahr would rather have his head chopped off by a drooling imam than admit that Bush was right about anything.
Until people are drinking puddle water and picking undigested oats from horse dung for susentance, they will not begin to question the fundamental viability of their current system.
Sure they will - and just say its all Bush's or Israel's fault as they do now.