- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 43,759
- Reaction score
- 10,985
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Youre either the policeman of the world or you arent. You cant just pick and choose and then say you are doing it for moral reasons, thats hypocrisy.
You bash Chamberlain but you know nothing about him. The Free World owes a great deal to the man who stalled to the point where Britain could survive a Nazi attack and serve as the largest naval carrier the world has ever seen. Neville Chamberlain flat out knew he was stalling for time. You don't sign an appeasement to Hitler and then order the largest military build up the UK has seen in its entire history if you aren't expecting a war. The UK was not ready and Neville Chamberlain knew it and unlike Rumsfeld, he didn't think going to war unprepared was a good idea.
What say you?
We were warned from the beginning that the war on terror was not going to be a quick victory. Bush was winning. Obama certainly is not. Obama stupidly assumed the war on terror was over the minute the US Navy Seals killed Osama Bin Laden. At that point his rhetoric became: We got Bin Laden, Al Queda is on the run. That's how his administration got into scandal trouble in Benghazi. He did not want to admit that the attacks that killed our ambassador were organized and planned. That's why they pushed the "Duheee...it was the video!" farce for over two weeks. It's also why Obama has been slow to react to ISIS.
You bash Chamberlain but you know nothing about him. The Free World owes a great deal to the man who stalled to the point where Britain could survive a Nazi attack and serve as the largest naval carrier the world has ever seen. Neville Chamberlain flat out knew he was stalling for time. You don't sign an appeasement to Hitler and then order the largest military build up the UK has seen in its entire history if you aren't expecting a war. The UK was not ready and Neville Chamberlain knew it and unlike Rumsfeld, he didn't think going to war unprepared was a good idea.
When and where has that worked when fighting guerillas?
Bush was winning? Then why are we still in Iraq? And why has lots of territory in the ME been seized by an organization which is rumored to be worse than Al Qeda?
Doesnt seem like a win at all.
Because Obama was elected, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and then went golfing.
You are making up history as you go along. If you want an objective history, read the book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L Shirer. It is very specific on everything that went on and included everything Chamberlain attempted. It was not a stalling tactic. Chamberlain acted stupidly.
Chamberlains core policy was appeasement, over years with Hitler
Records were found after the war that showed Hitlers military staff had decided just before invading poland that if ANY resistance was met at the border, they would retreat and find and kill Hitler. All it would have taken was a bit of resolve, but Chamberlain hung east europe out to dry.
Hitler owned him and it took war for him to swing around and support war. When he got back and gave his silly liberal "peace for our time" line (sounding like a John Kerry or Obama) he really thought he had achieved that. Churchill knew otherwise.
I consider this forum mostly right leaning. But then I consider Obama a centrist to right leaning democrat for the most part . Maybe I'm wrong, but I judge him by his actions on the economic front.
What planet are you from my left wing friend?
Given the state of the UK's military, he had little choice. Only an extremely idiotic strategist would rush to war completely unready, lose the core of his nation's army and then be sitting duck for the counter attack. Chamberlain bought time, time the UK badly needed to build up its military for the coming storm. Extremely partisans fail to realize this because they have no sense of history at all. Anyone with a brain who's looked at the UK military before WWII knows they were weak, both in manpower and in kit.
Excuse me if I don't actually believe you on this. You'll have to cite a reputable source, not some random blog you found in a dark corner of the internet. Second, how was Chamberlain to know this? You are blaming him for not acting with a vastly unready, poorly equipped force on something he knew nothing about. That makes you look extremely unreasonable. While we're at it, why don't we blame everything on the British soldier who couldn't bring himself to shoot an unarmed Hitler in WWI? Clearly he failed us all by not stopping Hitler. Of course he didn't know what would happen and shooting unarmed men is entirely without honor, but let's blame him because we know what he didn't. Jesus, you are one of the least reasonable people here.
Way to completely ignore what actually happened. And Churchill won on the military Chamberlain ordered. You forget that. Because you are an extreme partisan.
I agree that Chamberlain bought time-but it was for Hitler, and more to Hitlers benefit. He knew how to give the run around to naive progressives.
I will see if I can find the quotes on killing hitler at the first sign of resistance, it came out recently through old soviet records.
But in the end-Chamberlain was a chump who was mugged by reality-cut from the same cloth as Obama in a world that respects power.
One where he does not define "leftist" as anyone who disagrees with him on anything.
Obama is Bush III and Bush II was a right leaning centrist.
That is silly reactionist thought. The Taliban and Al Queda were our enemies when we invaded....and they are our enemies now. That has not changed. Terrorists can always find fanatical morons to join their cause. And to be fair, we did obtain a real victory in Afghanistan. You do notice that the Afghan government is no longer run by the Taliban, don't you? They were tossed out of power in fairly short order. What we have not won is the peace after the victory. To do that, we are going to have to allow the US military to fight without having one hand tied behind their backs(in effect). The rules of engagement are far too restrictive. We should have learned that lesson in Vietnam.
Bush was winning? Then why are we still in Iraq? And why has lots of territory in the ME been seized by an organization which is rumored to be worse than Al Qeda?
Doesnt seem like a win at all.
I have no desire reading an overtly partisan book advocated by an outrageously partisan member of this forum.
It is not up for debate that right after Chamberlain returned from the signing with Hitler he ordered the largest military buildup the UK has ever seen. That alone is definitive proof that Chamberlain knew war was coming and that the UK had to prepare. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that the UK was ready for war at that time is kidding themselves.
Too bad Rummy didn't pay attention to the lessons Chamberlain taught us. We probably could have saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives not rushing to war with a military not ready for that conflict.
Given the state of the UK's military, he had little choice. Only an extremely idiotic strategist would rush to war completely unready, lose the core of his nation's army and then be sitting duck for the counter attack. Chamberlain bought time, time the UK badly needed to build up its military for the coming storm. Extremely partisans fail to realize this because they have no sense of history at all. Anyone with a brain who's looked at the UK military before WWII knows they were weak, both in manpower and in kit..
We bombed those countries heavily and killed thousands of people but the quantity of our enemies is roughly the same or higher. There was no Al Qeda in Iraq until we got there. In both places we supported corrupt governments that screwed over a large portion of their people, which is a major cause of the current problems. The overall quantity of Islamist militants has increased and they have spread to more places. Our wars are their best recruitment tool. I don't believe the rules of engagement argument. We bombed the crap out of Viet Nam and killed thousands. The problem is that outside invaders can't win a foreign guerilla war or civil war without committing genocide and/or destroying the place.
I wish that was so but its not.
What say you?
Given the state of the UK's military, he had little choice. Only an extremely idiotic strategist would rush to war completely unready, lose the core of his nation's army and then be sitting duck for the counter attack. Chamberlain bought time, time the UK badly needed to build up its military for the coming storm. Extremely partisans fail to realize this because they have no sense of history at all. Anyone with a brain who's looked at the UK military before WWII knows they were weak, both in manpower and in kit.
Excuse me if I don't actually believe you on this. You'll have to cite a reputable source, not some random blog you found in a dark corner of the internet. Second, how was Chamberlain to know this? You are blaming him for not acting with a vastly unready, poorly equipped force on something he knew nothing about. That makes you look extremely unreasonable. While we're at it, why don't we blame everything on the British soldier who couldn't bring himself to shoot an unarmed Hitler in WWI? Clearly he failed us all by not stopping Hitler. Of course he didn't know what would happen and shooting unarmed men is entirely without honor, but let's blame him because we know what he didn't. Jesus, you are one of the least reasonable people here.
Way to completely ignore what actually happened. And Churchill won on the military Chamberlain ordered. You forget that. Because you are an extreme partisan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?