Glenn Greenwald writes about something that has long bugged me, which is the debate trick of likening every potential enemy to Hitler and to argue that to not attack him now is to make some wimpish Neville Chamberlain mistake. It not only bothers me in regard to things like the Iraq War, it bothers me in less crucial, day-to-day battles. Back when I was active in the Writers Guild, every committee I was on seemed to have a couple of members who were rabid to go to war against some enemy — calling a strike, filing a lawsuit, etc. — and it had to be done right away to prove our manhood and stop this particular Hitler before he invaded Poland. Should you dare to suggest that the problem could be settled in a manner other than all-out combat — or even (shudder) that it didn't have to be fought at all — someone would haul out ol' Neville Chamberlain and use him as an insult.
Long before it became a cliché to do so, I used to argue on computer bulletin boards that it was unfair to compare anyone to Hitler unless the person was arranging for mass genocide. If they were actually killing Jews, okay, you could call them Nazis. You couldn't invoke the analogy if, for example, they wouldn't let you smoke in restaurants or park in a loading zone. By the same standard, not every time someone is hesitant to resort to fisticuffs does not make them Chamberlain-style appeasers. You have to pick your battles in this world. If you try to fight every one, you won't win any. If someone wants to make the case for war against Iran, they'd better be able to make it without that little trick.