|
 Ellis Dee
Archangel
 
Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
 Neville's Folly 
#924252 - 10/02/02 04:01 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Tom Adkins
CommonConservative.com 10/1/02
Neville's Folly
by Tom Adkins
Today is September 30th. Mean anything to you? Probably not. But
it's possibly one of the most significant dates in world history.
It marks the 64th anniversary of British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain prancing in front of 10 Downing Street in London,
waiving the Munich Treaty like a trophy, proclaiming, "A British
Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with
honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a
nice quiet sleep." And they did. Hooray! England didn't have to
fight a war!
Within two years, Londoners slept in subway tunnels as Nazi
bombers blitzed English cities.
September 30, 1938, celebrates the most costly appeasement in
world history, as Chamberlain surrendered the Sudetenland to
Germany in exchange for Hitler's promise to stop invading Europe.
Hitler immediately understood England was gutless, and promptly
invaded the rest of Europe, then Russia. Within 7 years, estimates
vary between 35,000,000 and 60,000,000 dead, plus incomprehensible
destruction. All because of Chamberlains cowardly capitulation to a
bloodthirsty madman.
If appeasement is the bastard son of diplomacy, hedging is a First
Cousin. Franklin D. Roosevelt claimed there was no solid political
reason to take on Germany or the saber-rattling Japanese until Dec 7,
1941, as 2,388 Americans lost their lives at Pearl Harbor. The next
day, Germany and Italy declared war on America. Finally, FDR had his
"direct evidence" of Japanese and German intentions.
From the schoolyard to the world stage, appeasement and hedging have
created more death, mayhem, and bowed heads of slavery than any
other diplomatic path. It is amazing how often these twin pillars
of ignorant cowardice dominate history. From Northern France to
Ireland, rampaging Vikings raided, raped, and pillaged anything
within sailing distance, demanding and receiving gold for peace.
When the gold ran out, the raids returned until somebody figured
out they could build a nice army with all that gold. Jimmy Carter
practically gave the world to the Soviet Union, then Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush grabbed the politburo's throat and squeezed
until Lenin statues started falling. Israel is currently
experiencing the result of the failed land-for-peace Oslo accords,
which united and incited radical Arab factions to ratchet up
violence. Unable to understand Hitler's threat and unwilling to
buck popular opinion of the unwashed masses, Chamberlain spinelessly
bargained for a mere 18 months of temporary peace, rescued by
idealistic American men, machines, and blood. Again.
The stark examples of unchecked hedging also present a deep stain
upon the world fabric: Khmer Rouge. Idi Amin. Rwanda. Eastern
Europe. Yet today, as George Bush faces the greatest threat to
world peace, appeasers and hedgers are running amok. Despite
piles of bones and rivers of blood from a century of appeasement
and hedging, the United Nations had to be embarrassed into tepidly
supporting Bush's threat to enforce unfulfilled 11-year old
sanctions upon a terrorist state that refuses to disarm, threatens
to export biological and chemical weapons, and menaces the world
with the nuclear weapons it tries mightily to develop. The choice
of pre-emptive action cannot be more compelling.
Yet fools still wring their hands: Why the hurry? What will happen
to the economy? What could happen to Middle East stability? What
will the world think? The answers to these ludicrous questions are
simple: Every day is closer to Hussein giving terrorists a
biological weapon or successfully assembling a nuclear weapon.
The economy will be quite fine when a free Iraq sells oil on the
open market. We want to destabilize the troublemaking despots who
dominate the Middle East (then crush them). And who gives a damn
what the world thinks? We have 3,000 excuses to defend ourselves
any way we see fit.
Today, George W. Bush faces a classic world crisis. Except this
time, America is the prime target. Terrorists reside in half the
world's nations, a dozen actively supporting them. They want to
kill us. Yet just like the terminally nationalistic Europe of the
1930s, the world seems dominated by foolish leaders who don't grasp
the danger, determined to hang separately rather than hang together.
Once again, America must save the world, despite itself. So be it.
That's what makes us great.
So don't just remember this date, celebrate it. Tip your glass to
the most gutless, naive leader in the last century: Neville
Chamberlain. And if anyone asks you if we should be fighting
this war, ask them if they celebrate September 30th.
--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
|
 Frog31337
Stranger
Registered: 06/17/02
Posts: 779
Loc: Midwest, US
|
 Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Ellis Dee]
#924720 - 10/02/02 11:09 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
That was a good post. It was very well layed out and logical. The difference between Hitler and Sadam is that Hitler was invading countries. Sadam is sitting in a desert annoying his neighbors.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Ellis Dee]
#924880 - 10/02/02 12:14 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Compared to the american response to Hitler, Neville was ferocious. The americans were actively working on developing a relationship with Hitler once he'd taken Britain out. Thank god at least the brits had some backbone.
It's highly debateable whether the US would ever have declared war on Hitler - in the end it took Hitler declaring war on them before they did anything.
And as the man above said - Hitler was invading countries, Iraq is a third world country, starving, riddled with disease and with 3-5000 little kids under the age of 5 dying every month. The comparison is utterly ridiculous.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Frog31337]
#925130 - 10/02/02 02:00 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Frog31337 writes:
the difference between Hitler and Sadam is that Hitler was invading countries.
You miss the point. At the time Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement, Hitler WASN'T invading countries, with the exception of the Austrian anschluss. At that time, not even all those in Austria characterized his "reunification of Germanic peoples" as an invasion, though many did.
It wasn't until Chamberlain and Daladier signed the Munich agreement that Hitler occupied the Sudeten portion of Czechoslovakia, then the rest of Czechoslovakia, then Poland, at which point Britain and France finally declared war on him.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Xlea321]
#925144 - 10/02/02 02:06 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
It's highly debateable whether the US would ever have declared war on Hitler - in the end it took Hitler declaring war on them before they did anything.
But isn't that what you and the majority of the anti-American posters to this forum want? For the United States to "mind its own business", and stay out of the affairs of the rest of the world? Don't you all advocate that the US sit back and let the other countries settle their differences by themselves? After all, according to you Iraq is no threat to the US, nor even to its neighbors. Saddam has assured us repeatedly he is no threat and has no intentions of wars of conquest, just as Hitler was full of assurances sixty years ago.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Phred]
#925521 - 10/02/02 04:16 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
But isn't that what you and the majority of the anti-American posters to this forum want?
Nope. We want the exact opposite. For the US to stop installing brutal dictators like Saddam, arming them for 12 years and then going and blowing the fuck out of innocent little brown people when you need the oil.
As I said, Hitler had assembled the most powerful army the world had ever seen by 1938. That's kinda different to a third world country like Iraq who'se army is about as threatening as the Hare Krishnas.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Phred]
#925547 - 10/02/02 04:25 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
You miss the point. At the time Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement, Hitler WASN'T invading countries, with the exception of the Austrian anschluss.
Well, remember that he'd taken over the Rhineland in '36 and his military inolvement in the spanish civil war..then there was the little matter of him building the most powerful military machine the world had ever known in the 4-5 short years he'd came to power, withdrawing from the league of nations, forming a pact with Italy who had recently invaded Ethiopia. And writing in Mein Kampf and every public speech he ever gave that his aim was to invade Russia.
That's the kinda thing I think most people would agree was a threat. Not Iraq.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
foghorn
enthusiast
Registered: 12/13/01
Posts: 308
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Xlea321]
#925646 - 10/02/02 04:54 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
chamberland's appeasement to Hitler was made almost without choice - as the english army was ill prepared for ANOTHER war with Germany, who had been building up their military for the past several years
the appeasement, though it lasted for a pretty short period of time allowed the english and french (hahahahaha) to build up and fortify their defences... obviously the french didnt use their time wisely, but Chamberland's decision may have saved thousands of brits by fortifying their aerial defences
there is no way Europe could have fought and won the war vs Nazi Germany alone, and the appeasement was done before the 'allied' forces banded together against their common enemy
sep 30 is also my birthday
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Phred]
#930495 - 10/04/02 12:04 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
You seem to have gone very quiet pinky. Care to address a few of the facts in this thread?
The difference between Iraq and Germany's military might would be a good place to start.
Then you can address the spanish civil war, the re-occupation of the Rhineland, the withdrawal from the league of nations, the massive re-armament programe, the constant statements Hitler made about invading Russia etc etc etc
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Xlea321]
#930882 - 10/04/02 02:22 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
You seem to have gone very quiet pinky.
Contrary to your belief, Alex dear lad, I do not spend 24 hours a day hovering over the keyboard. Patience is a virtue, don't you know?
The author's POINT re appeasement as a workable strategy to deter aggression is that it doesn't work. He specifically uses the case of the Munich agreement to provide a textbook example to PROVE it doesn't work. Frog 1337 chose to ignore the point entirely and quibble over minor differences in the analogy, and he didn't even get THAT right... he says "The difference between Hitler and Sadam is that Hitler was invading countries," apparently forgetting that Iraq DID in fact invade a country.
You are of course quite correct when you point out there were plenty of indications that Hitler intended to initiate a war of conquest -- the examples you gave merely bolster the author's point that these obvious indications were dismissed by Chamberlain (and others -- Chamberlain was not the only appeaser) because they felt these obvious danger signs carried less weight than Hitler's personal assurance that he would behave himself.
Similarly, there are indications that Hussein is planning future acts of aggression -- his refusal to destroy his existing stocks of OFFENSIVE weapons such as longe-range missiles and chemical and biological agents, his massive rebuilding of his conventional weaponry, his standing army of half a million men and reserve forces of 650,000, his continuing weapons development programs, etc.
Yet for some reason, despite Hussein's track record, the majority of the posters to this forum (including yourself) are willing to accept Hussein's assurance that he will behave himself. Not only do they exhibit a ssomewhat touching naivete on this point, they have the audacity to accuse anyone who DOESN'T trust Hussein's word of being naive, claiming that "Iraq is no more dangerous than Mexico," etc.
One small point... you claim that "And writing in Mein Kampf and every public speech he ever gave that his aim was to invade Russia." Although he did express his wish to see Russia overrun in Mein Kampf, he certainly did not broadcast this aim in "EVERY public speech," far from it. Nazi Germany and Russia were allies at the outbreak of the war, remember?
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Xlea321]
#930910 - 10/04/02 02:32 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
We want the exact opposite. For the US to stop installing brutal dictators like Saddam...
First of all, the US didn't "install" Hussein. He seized power all by himself.
But back to your odd dichotomy of what you believe the US should have done:
You criticized the US for not declaring war on Germany and instead waiting for Germany to declare war on the US. Do I take it then that you approve of the US decision to liberate Kuwait in 1991? If so, do you DISAPPROVE of their decision not to finish the job back then?
After all, if (as you claim) it is the fault of the US that Hussein was in a position to invade Kuwait; if all of Hussein's actions are the direct result of US policies towards him, is it not their responsibility to clean up their mess and eliminate this Frankenstein's monster of theirs?
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Phred]
#931506 - 10/04/02 09:40 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Contrary to your belief, Alex dear lad, I do not spend 24 hours a day hovering over the keyboard.
Well you've made several posts in other topics at the board since. Perhaps this thread just slipped your mind...
First of all, the US didn't "install" Hussein. He seized power all by himself.
Not according to the CIA. The CIA official responsible called it at the time "Our favourite coup".
You criticized the US for not declaring war on Germany and instead waiting for Germany to declare war on the US. Do I take it then that you approve of the US decision to liberate Kuwait in 1991?
As we've already established comparing Germany and Iraq is silly.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (10/04/02 09:46 AM)
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Xlea321]
#931772 - 10/04/02 11:54 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Not according to the CIA. The CIA official responsible called it at the time "Our favourite coup".
It is not uncommon for ambitious government officials bent on advancement to take credit for things they had nothing to do with, particularly in the clandestine services where the only intelligence available to congress comes from the agency itself. There was a post here not long ago detailing Hussein's rise to power -- I believe it was Lord Morham who posted it.
As we've already established comparing Germany and Iraq is silly.
"We" have established no such thing. However, I find it revealing that you feel comparing Nazi Germany to Iraq is "silly", yet comparing Nazi Germany to the USA is not.
I ask again, since you feel it correct to criticize the US for not declaring war on Germany in 1939, do you approve of the US decision to liberate Kuwait in 1991? If so, do you DISAPPROVE of their decision not to finish the job back then?
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Phred]
#931869 - 10/04/02 12:38 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"We" have established no such thing.
Well you've offered nothing to refute it.
I ask again, since you feel it correct to criticize the US for not declaring war on Germany in 1939, do you approve of the US decision to liberate Kuwait in 1991?
You talk as tho Saddam woke up one morning and said "I know, I'll invade Kuwait today!".
Lets go back a bit and put things in context. Do I approve of the US installing Saddam in power, arming him with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for 10 years, encouraging him in his war on Iran, developing a relationship so close it was known as "the love affair", and saying "we have no interest in arab-arab conflicts" on the eve of the invasion of Kuwait? Nope. The trouble is if you encourage, prop up and arm brutal dictators then you have to expect things to go wrong occasionally. If you insist on supporting dictators like Saddam these things are going to happen. The best thing is not to support thugs in the first place.
The analogy is if you brought a wild jackal into your home and let it sleep beside your baby every night. Once the jackal has eaten the baby are you justified in taking action against the jackal? Who would you blame - the jackal or the people who supported it and left it in the baby's room?
btw, saying Kuwait was "liberated" is rather ironic. The savage US backed rulers who were re-installed in Kuwait are every bit as vicious and corrupt as Saddam. Whether it was worth a single life returning these worthless evil bastards to power I'm not sure.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (10/04/02 01:01 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Xlea321]
#932012 - 10/04/02 01:26 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Do I approve of the US installing Saddam in power...
The US did not "install" Hussein... he did that on his own.
...arming him with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons...
Ummm... NUCLEAR weapons? I thought all you Saddam-lovers insist that he has no nuclear weapons program.
The trouble is if you encourage, prop up and arm brutal dictators then you have to expect things to go wrong occasionally. If you insist on supporting dictators like Saddam these things are going to happen.
True... IF one does such things, one must assume responsibility for dealing with the things that go wrong. Hence my oft-repeated yet still unanswered question -- do you agree with the US decision to expel the Iraqi occupation army from Kuwait in 1991?
The best thing is not to support thugs in the first place.
Agreed. However, when said thugs get out of line, is it not correct to withdraw all support and to oppose them to the limit of one's ability?
The analogy is if you brought a wild jackal into your home and let it sleep beside your baby every night. Once the jackal has eaten the baby are you justified in taking action against the jackal?
Of course! What rational person would think otherwise?
Whether it was worth a single life returning these worthless evil bastards to power I'm not sure.
You may not be sure, but the thousands of Kuwaitis who had their relatives raped, tortured, and murdered and their businesses looted and destroyed hold a different opinion.
Before we move on to some other tangent or evasion, could you please answer the questions I have asked? Note that I answer ALL your questions.
1) Do you agree with the US decision to expel the Iraqi occupation army from Kuwait in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Phred]
#932033 - 10/04/02 01:31 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry but if you can only understand world affairs in terms of "yes" or "no" you really arn't to be taken seriously.
Are you sure about the jackal thing? You'd feel ok about the people who let the jackal sleep in the same room as their baby? You have a very strange idea of rationality...
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Phred]
#932046 - 10/04/02 01:33 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
You may not be sure, but the thousands of Kuwaitis who had their relatives raped, tortured, and murdered and their businesses looted and destroyed hold a different opinion.
And the Kuwait's who have been raped, tortured and murdered since "liberation" may tell a different story to you. One more complex than "yes or no".
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Xlea321]
#932098 - 10/04/02 01:51 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry but if you can only understand world affairs in terms of "yes" or "no" you really arn't to be taken seriously.
YESSS! *High Five* I win the bet! Thanks, Alex. I'll think of you while I'm enjoying my free dinner tonight.
I knew you would never answer those questions, since doing so would expose the contradictions and irrationalities in your position. You are soooooo predictable.
You'd feel ok about the people who let the jackal sleep in the same room as their baby?
I never said that, oh master of distortion, evasion, and misinterpretation. The question asked was "Once the jackal has eaten the baby are you justified in taking action against the jackal?" The answer is, "Of course!"
To get away from analogies and return to the real world, do I agree with every facet (or even MOST facets) of the US relationship with Saddam Hussein pre-1990? Emphatically not! Clearly it was a mistake to tolerate his actions. However, past errors are not a justification for continued errors.
Although I know you won't believe me, I was one of many who expressed the opinion during the Reagan administration that SH was a loose cannon and not to be co-operated with -- I did not form this opinion with the benefit of hindsight.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Xlea321]
#932110 - 10/04/02 01:56 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
And the Kuwait's who have been raped, tortured and murdered since "liberation" may tell a different story to you. One more complex than "yes or no".
Does the Kuwaiti government share the same respect for human rights as the US government? Nope, but then again neither does ANY Arab government, the Saudis included.
However, to pretend the life of the Kuwaiti populace is worse under the existing Kuwaiti regime than it was during the Iraqi regime is worse than naive, it is deliberately dishonest.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Neville's Folly [Re: Phred]
#932461 - 10/04/02 03:46 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
YESSS! *High Five* I win the bet!
What bet?
I knew you would never answer those questions
Which questions? The "Daddy say yes or no" stuff? I thought you were joking to be honest. You mean you were serious?
Clearly it was a mistake to tolerate his actions. However, past errors are not a justification for continued errors.
Oh I see. Installing a brutal dictator in power, arming him, shipping him chemical weapons and loaning him billions of dollars is "tolerating" someone is it? Giving a known murderer a billion dollars and chemical weapons is a "past error" is it? Gee. Well, that's ok then. I'm sure Dubya will pick another wonderful, compassionate person who will take just as much care of his people as Saddam did in the 80's when you were shipping him weaponry.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
lonestar2004
Annapurna1
Prajna
Ancalagon
ekomstop
Learyfan