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.
Karen - 05:05pm on 05/15/2008
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.
Puzzlefeet - 05:05pm on 05/15/2008
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.
Chief RZ - 05:05pm on 05/15/2008
Yet Israel sat down with Egypt, their enemy, and Jordan, their enemy and talked and now live peaceably.
Puzzlefeet - 06:05pm on 05/15/2008
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.
richNJ - 06:05pm on 05/15/2008
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.
Ken McCracken - 06:05pm on 05/15/2008
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.
Hoss - 06:05pm on 05/15/2008
MSNBC is a disgusting news channel, there is not one bit of objectivity to that station. MSNBC is pro Obama and ANTI republican.
goon - 08:05pm on 05/15/2008
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.
Chief RZ - 08:05pm on 05/15/2008
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yet Israel sat down with Egypt, their enemy, and Jordan, their enemy and talked and now live peaceably.
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.
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.
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.
MSNBC is a disgusting news channel, there is not one bit of objectivity to that station. MSNBC is pro Obama and ANTI republican.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.