So you have to find the fallacies in the passage below and tell why you think it is a fallacy and show where there are fallacies in the passage.

B. Background: In this passage, William Thorsell is arguing that the waging war is a necessary means of opposing tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. His piece, "The Decisive Exercise of Power," appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail for December 19, 1999. 

In the 1930's the aversion to war in France and the United Kingdom was so pervasive that some pacifists preferred their own subjugation to resistance in the face of violence. Dandies in the best schools developed... eloquent rationales for inaction and appeasement, even treason, to avoid the contest for power that was obviously rising in Europe. They rejected the wisdom that good and evil are perpetually in conflict, and that it is only for good men to do nothing and for evil men to triumph .... Remarkably, some of the leading nations in the world still don't appear to 'get it' when Saddam Hussein reappears. At root, it seems to be a matter of non-recognition. They just can't see the man for who he is, just as many people couldn't see 'Mr. Hitler' for who he was (the limits of the parallel noted). If you cannot recognize your enemy, you will not defeat him, except by luck of circumstance, and that will rarely do. ""