quasi Report This Comment Date: January 17, 2007 11:21PM
Not a bad man, he did what most people thought was the right thing but it
turned out so very, very wrong. Let's not repeat his mistake; the consequences
if we do will be far worse than they were in his time.
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 18, 2007 04:30AM
Oh come on, that's Gomez Adams!
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 18, 2007 01:43PM
Oh please, before posting reactionary propaganda will you at least crack open a
history book and get your facts straight?
Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler because the allies were in no position to
challenge him militarily. Yes, he signed a treaty- but he also reinstated the
draft and began the largest peacetime military buildup in British history.
Chamberlain laid the groundwork for everything Churchill accomplished.
He was not the fool you portray him as.
I'll tell you what is foolish, though- invading a country and then botching the
occupation so badly that they now pose a bigger threat than they did before.
How stupid do you have to be to pull off *that* trick?
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: January 18, 2007 04:42PM
"I'll tell you what is foolish, though- invading a country and then
botching the occupation so badly that they now pose a bigger threat than they
did before. How stupid do you have to be to pull off *that* trick?"
Stupidity comes in all flavors, like yours, what's next ?, Iraq is Bush's
Vietnam ?
The invasion/occupation/democratisation of Iraq is Payback to the muslim world
for 911, and I just love to see those Terrorists (insurgents is not the correct
description) fight real Soldiers, they have no army to put against them only
some schmucks that schtick dynamite up their ass and blow themselves up.
have a nice day
quasi Report This Comment Date: January 18, 2007 11:03PM
The allies were in a poor position to take on Hitler in 1938 because they were
in denial about the German leader and his military build up. Right now the
radical Islamists are acting like Keystone Cops with bombs in Iraq and rattling
sabres in Iran with no real strength. If we leave now, then they'll gain in
strength (at the cost of thousands more of their own countrymen's lives) and
when the suicidal idiots get their hands on the bomb, what's gone on so far will
look like a picnic and our grandkids (any that might survive) will think we're
idiots for not remaining strong in the face of a relatively weak but
extraordinarily dangerous enemy.
90130_ Report This Comment Date: January 19, 2007 11:33AM
We should have been allowed to finish the job in 1991 with the greater strength
of the multi-national coalition support we had back then. After flying 40+
attack sorties and then close air support for ground forces who were stopped
well short of Baghdad, I patrolled the southern no-fly for three years while
Saddam thumbed his nose at us. Might have been an entirely different picture
now.
