Is there a benefit to using past is prologue to avoid repeating mistakes?

Yes.

The best example i can think of actually comes from Saddam Hussein.

Under the Reagan administration Saddam Hussein was defending himself against Pershmerga forces invading Iraq from Iran.

"[66] using dual-use technology imported following the Reagan administration's lifting of export restrictions. The United States also supplied Iraq with "satellite photos showing Iranian deployments."[67] In a US bid to open full diplomatic relations with Iraq, the country was removed from the US list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Ostensibly, this was because of improvement in the regime's record, although former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Noel Koch later stated, "No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in terrorism ... The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran."[68] The Soviet Union, France, and China together accounted for over 90% of the value of Iraq's arms imports between 1980 and 1988.[69]".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Iran%... .

However, it was not until after the Bush administration got in, that this attack on Iranian's being ushered in by Pershmerga forces, suddenly became an attack on innocent Iraqi Kurdish civilians.

"On 16 March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja was attacked with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more. (see Halabja poison gas attack)[70] The attack occurred in conjunction with the 1988 al-Anfal Campaign designed to reassert central control of the mostly Kurdish population of areas of northern Iraq and defeat the Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces. The United States now maintains that Saddam ordered the attack to terrorize the Kurdish population in northern Iraq,[70] but Saddam's regime claimed at the time that Iran was responsible for the attack[71] which some[who?] including the U.S. supported until several years later.".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Iran%... .

However, the devilish thing about Generations, is that Generations living under the Bush administration are likely unaware of what happened under the Reagan administration.

And also there appears to be somekind of belief that being voted out by the people and being replaced, somehow admonishes one of any wrong doing, and now the new administration can simply tear up old deals and alliances that the old administration had with this person, "and even declare that person a terrorist for doing all the things that the previous regime gave him full support in carrying out".

Now whilst i am a supporter of democracy, and not a supporter of dictatorship, which Saddam Hussein was, does not mean i support the current version of Democracy being practised currently.

We currently live in a civilisation where our democracy is still evolving.

Currently it is not there yet.

What we have is a representative democracy whereby we vote for 4 or 5 yearly dictators and representatives to think and vote for us.

"Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy or representative government, is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[1] Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy, France is a unitary semi-presidential republic, and the United States is a federal presidential republic.[2]".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democ... .

However real democracy, would be direct democracy, where the voter votes on every single matter they wish to vote on, themselves, and they pretty much do away with the need for representatives, and even a primeminister.

The prime-minister is reduced to simply a person that signs bills based on the majority opinion of his people, regardless of his/her own.

"Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of currently established democracies, which are representative democracies.".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy .

Now this would be better, as it is unlikely that people would vote to have someone placed on the terrorist register that they had previously voted to support in carrying out those crimes.

It would take an awful lot of voters to agree "hey, lets vote to remove ourself of all blame by changing our stance, and placing all responsibility on his shoulders".

Could you just imagine it?

But, before you can see that direct democracy is what we should be evolving towards, one would need to see the prior evolution evolving.

Also, before one can see legitimate concerns in our democratic political structure, one requires to actually know what has happened previous, before they will be able to see the problems with this structure.

I will end this by pointing out that the current nation that is number 1 for having a population that are on average the wealthiest individuals per person, are the Swiss, currently one of the worlds few direct democracies.

Though, actually, only a semi-direct democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

" Federal semi-direct democracy under a multi-party assembly-independent[4][5] directorial republic".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland .

Switzerland is also one of the most peaceful countries in the world, and have not fought a war since 1815.

" Switzerland has maintained a strong policy of armed neutrality; it has not fought an international war since 1815 ".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland .

So those that suggest direct democracy would lead to anarchy, because people cannot think for themselves, are maybe not 100% correct.

People "will" think for themselves if they have to.

And in a non representative country, they have to.

Now whether or not you agree with my example, regards to Saddam Hussein, has nothing to do with it.

The point is, that my research of the past is what shaped my vision for the future.

And imo, that is direct democracy. (opposite of Nazism).