If You’re Going To Invoke Neville Chamberlain It’s Best To Know A Little Something About The Guy

The Whistler • May 16, 2008

I’m just sayin’…

I suppose this little gotcha moment will have Mr. Obama-Makes-Me-Tingle-In-My-Pants and the rest of the Obama disciples thinking this exonerates their messiah, but really is this guy’s naivete about Chamberlain’s legacy any worse than Obama’s apparent ignorance about the foreign policies of people like Roosevelt and Truman?
Here’s the truth: Chamberlain’s couldn’t negotiate with Hitler because Hitler didn’t want what Chamberlain wanted, and had no reason to believe that there were consequences for defying him. Obama won’t be able to negotiate with terrorists like Hamas for the same reason. They’re monsters, and they have no reason to believe that anyone – up to and including the perpetually-hamstrung-by-world-opinion Israel – will ever mount enough will power to deal them any really serious consequences if they don’t comply with the negotiations.

Tags: Asshats, International Scene, Politics, The Loony Left

http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Yet Israel sat down with Egypt, their enemy, and Jordan, their enemy and talked and now live peaceably.

Huge difference there. Israel did not meet with them without preconditions. And Egypt and Jordan actually wanted peace with Israel.

Which you cannot say about Iran.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

Kenny. I agree with you. No one can with 100% confidence predict the future, but this case of giving away what is not yours is typical liberal.
Notice how quickly Qaddafi’s Libya complied the week after President Reagan was sworn in. They knew he was a man of his word.
Lestat

They’re monsters, and they have no reason to believe that anyone – up to and including the perpetually-hamstrung-by-world-opinion Israel – will ever mount enough will power to deal them any really serious consequences if they don’t comply with the negotiations.

Are you really that ignorant of world affairs?
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

As I understand it, Chamberlain attempted to “give away” region(s) and assumed this would appease Hitler and prevent another world war. It didn’t work.

None of the regions he tried to “give away” were part of France. So, Chamberlain did what the liberals today do…demand OTHERS give up land to monsters. Most historians agree that if Chamberlain had stood up to Hitler, that whole nasty WW2 and Holocaust thing wouldn’t have happened.

So, what does this say? Do we try first to avoid major conflict with nations or do we attack first and ask questions later? Note the difference between a country and a separate terrorist group with no allegiance to a country.

It says that conflict should be avoided if acceptable. Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler was the green light for him to go to war against a non-aggressor nation.
Just, stop Karen.

Yet Israel sat down with Egypt, their enemy, and Jordan, their enemy and talked and now live peaceably.

So after mocking someone else for not knowing history (the guy was right on btw), you throw out such stupidity?

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israel-Egypt%20Peace%20Treaty

Desiring to bring to an end the state of war between them and to establish a peace in which every state in the area can live in security;

The peace treaty was an end to the WAR between Egypt and Israel. After much blood letting on both sides, and a distinctive defeat of Egypt, they came crawling to the table. Israel, also anxious to stop the killing agreed to talks that they felt were fair.

The same is true of peace with Jordan. While Israel DID make concessions, so did Jordan.

C’mon Puzzle. A LITTLE knowledge isn’t a lot to ask.
Karen

As I understand it, Chamberlain attempted to “give away” region(s) and assumed this would appease Hitler and prevent another world war. It didn’t work. Chamberlain ultimately declared war on Hitler. So, what does this say? Do we try first to avoid major conflict with nations or do we attack first and ask questions later? Note the difference between a country and a separate terrorist group with no allegiance to a country.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

Goon. Most unbiased adults would come to the same conclusion. I taught discrimination between misleading advertisements during the consumer awareness chapter in Health Education. This is a clear example of biased media “reporting” disguised as news.
Hoss

This guy didn’t and he tried to BS his way through and got his ass handed to him.

I hate when people keep talking over each other, and that guy was out of control.Painful to watch.

But trying to “talk” to Iran will be an amazing waste of time, and It’ll just make us look weak. The Iranian regime gains it’s power by blaming America first, and Israel second, for every little thing that goes wrong. If we’re buddies, they lose power, and that ain’t gonna happen. It’s like if Jesse Jackson, et al, can’t supposedly find a racist under every rock and behind every action they’re gonna put themselves out of business. Sure, Iran may grab any carrots we offer, but so did North Korea.
pparets

John Langard: Neville Chaimberlain’s quest for “Peace in our times” ended up surrendering massive portions of the British Empire and resulted in the deaths of millions.

You are naive beyond belief if you think that Adolf Hitler only wanted back portions of Germany surrendered in the Versailles Treaty. ‘Leibensraum’ was a demand first articulated in Mein Kampf which called for all of Europe to be a vassal state to the Third Reich and for Russia to be ‘depopulated’ to make room for German expansion.
Puzzlefeet

This guy won’t be back on the show ever! If you’re gonna make an allegation you’d better be able to back it up and know your history. This guy didn’t and he tried to BS his way through and got his ass handed to him.
john langard

kenny chamberlain was the pm of England not france so maybe you should get your facts straight. Secondly chamberlain gave away the danzig corridor, the sudetenland and all of czechoslavakia. Chamberlain didnt givae away parts of England because Hitler was working to get back what was taken from germany in the Treaty of Versailles.
richNJ

Starting talks with a known terriosist regime gives the person negotiating a chance to see if the opposing side would live up to their commitments. It is a proper thing to do and has been done many times. Saddam Hussein, North Korea and now Iran has shown that talking to them is the SAME as what Chamberlain attempted to do with Hitler. Hitler signed on with what Chamberlain wanted and then turned around and did what he wished. That has been done by Iran, Iraq and North Korea continually during the 80′s and 90′s. To avoid the past as BO wishes to do shows either he feels his rhetoric is much classier and therefore more effective than anyone else in the past or his advisors are ignorant of the past. Either way its a deadly combination. Of course he could be willing to sign off on anything that Iran, Al-Qaeda or North Korea wants figuring he has them under his oratory spell like his supporters.
Puzzlefeet

Yet Israel sat down with Egypt, their enemy, and Jordan, their enemy and talked and now live peaceably.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

MSNBC is a disgusting news channel, there is not one bit of objectivity to that station. MSNBC is pro Obama and ANTI republican.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

Chamberlain basically gave the green light for Hitler to occupy the Sudetenland, which was part of Czechoslovakia. He was saying that Great Britain would not go to war against Germany in that case. Had he said no, or had the backing of GB that they would stand up to Hitler, he might have been stopped right there. A lesson for BO that he may not understand. Sort of like Jimmy Carter and Arafat, the liar.

SayAnythingBlog.com

If You’re Going To Invoke Neville Chamberlain It’s Best To Know A Little Something About The Guy

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments