America is a democracy at war with the whole world. After the cold war I thought they would settle down, but now the new enemy is international terrorism.

Since the end of the Spanish-American War 1897 the US has been invading, occupping and installing right wing dictators. The worse part is diplomacy is seen as a "weakness", although "winning" Vietnan or Afghanistan is just a Republican myth.

Am I the only one who sees things the way they are?;)

America is a democracy at war with the whole world. After the cold war I thought they would settle down, but now the new enemy is international terrorism.

Since the end of the Spanish-American War 1897 the US has been invading, occupping and installing right wing dictators. The worse part is diplomacy is seen as a "weakness", although "winning" Vietnan or Afghanistan is just a Republican myth.


A couple of corrections you might want to go back and fix:

occupping should be occupying
Vietnan should be Vietnam

You're a funny man, Benny Hill.

And your political advice is just about as good as all the funny men in the US.

Interesting thing I've noted. Almost all of the "complaints" never include constructive suggestions on how things could be better. There are only negatives and no attempt at finding anything positive. Do you think that might be a symptom of what is wrong with the world?

America is a democracy at war with the whole world. After the cold war I thought they would settle down, but now the new enemy is international terrorism.

Since the end of the Spanish-American War 1897 the US has been invading, occupping and installing right wing dictators. The worse part is diplomacy is seen as a "weakness", although "winning" Vietnan or Afghanistan is just a Republican myth.

Am I the only one who sees things the way they are?;)

Everyone - has their own personal reasons it seems.

Wasn't it 1898?

The spelling and grammar would have been correct if it were:cool:

America is a democracy at war with the whole world. After the cold war I thought they would settle down, but now the new enemy is international terrorism.

Since the end of the Spanish-American War 1897 the US has been invading, occupping and installing right wing dictators. The worse part is diplomacy is seen as a "weakness", although "winning" Vietnan or Afghanistan is just a Republican myth.

Am I the only one who sees things the way they are?;)

God dammit Benny! Don't you remember your state school history lessons, surely you must remember that America's intention was always to bring freedom and democracy to its enemies? How you can post such anti-American, unpatriotic rhetoric is, well, just beyond me......................

I'm offended....


































Not by anything said here but just generally :D











.

I am bored on here, but if I have something to say then I use my own login name.

Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with the original poster.

America has made mistakes (as have the British). America and the UK maybe still are, in Afghanistan - who knows, time maybe will tell.

Col

The truth is, a lot of us see the problems in our own country with great sadness. We know we have many problems. We know we cannot expect the world to like us. But we learned some lessons by watching others try different tactics that failed miserably.

Appeasement is merely slow surrender. Remember Clement Atlee? (not sure of the spelling)

Looking the other way sacrifices the person who is the focus of attention. Remember the Holocaust?

The problem we have is that there are too many places to look and sometimes you need to do diplomatic triage to decide who gets an ambassador and who gets the cluster bomb. There is a part of me that says "Oh what a STUPID choice was made." (And yes, talking about my own diplomatic corps, military, etc.) But there is another part of me that says, "That is a tough call and I'm glad I don't have to make it."

We have had to face a difficult economy. We cannot afford to send troops everywhere because there are too many places where such troops would be warranted. From the news we get here, the Darfur region needs to have military intervention, but that is another quagmire waiting to happen. Haiti needs our military, too - but not the soldiers. They need our military construction batallions to help clear the rubble. But those guys are busy as well.

I know it seems to some folks that the USA is still poking its nose where people think it should not be, but from our side, it seems that we are slowly pulling back from trying to do everything for everybody. That way lies poverty and national bankruptcy. I know that if I were "king of the world" I wouldn't have a clue as to how to solve the problem popping up everywhere. We might still feel a moral imperative, but so much changed after the 9/11 disaster that I believe we are still feeling the ripples. And probably will for years to come.

Col, Rich - you guys bash the USA sometimes. I object to some of it, but now and then you guys are right. Some of the decisions made by the previous president were so far out as to make me check for cheshire cats, white rabbits with pocket watches, and red queens with attitude in the vicinity.

Appeasement is merely slow surrender. Remember Clement Atlee? (not sure of the spelling)

I feel sorry for poor Clem, if we had gone to war earlier we would have been slaughtered, we nearly were anyway, I have read some historians who say that he knew it was inevitable but was buying time for us to prepare.

Brian

Appeasement is merely slow surrender. Remember Clement Atlee? (not sure of the spelling)

As leader of the opposition Clement Attlee was opposed to appeasement from 1937 onwards. The prime minister in favour of appeasement was Neville Chamberlain

My bad. It was longer than I thought since I read that article. OK, apologies to Mr. Attlee.

Appeasement is merely slow surrender. Remember Clement Atlee? (not sure of the spelling)

Looking the other way sacrifices the person who is the focus of attention. Remember the Holocaust?


Oh man, this is a tough one - Having spent a great deal of time reading about the 1st & 2nd World Wars, there is no easy answer to this - I guess you had to be there at the time.

WW1 - Having gone through the horrors of trench warfare (60,000 killed in 2 hours at the Somme!) those that survived went home to: The Great Depression (some reward!)

To me, it is not surprising that
A) you would do anything to avoid another war
B) be surprised if anybody turned up for it

And now an ANZAC (Australia & New Zealand Army Corp) perspective:

Our 1st contibution to world conflicts was Winston Churchill's disasterous plan to invade Turkey, with insufficient planning & medical back up - not surprisingly, we got slaughtered, but managed one of the great evacuations (no one killed) in military history. Most bizarre, is that disaster is now the most important rememberence day in Aus/NZ. Not learning from our mistakes, we turned up for WW2 and Churchill repeated his blunderings withe Greece/ Crete campiagns

To me, the most compeling cause of WW2 was the hyperinflation in Germany in the 1920's - We have a financial problem, so let's print money (sound familiar US/UK???????) - A British reporter observed an old lady carrying a whicker basket of several million marks (the cost of a loaf of bread) who was mugged- they tipped out the money and stole the basket!!!!!

With Perry storming into Japan and dictating terms as to how they should behave in US terms (and the universal European disregard of Asians) should anybody be surprised at Pearl Harbour???

Japan's big mistake in WW2 was not to embrace the countries they 'liberated' from the round eyes, but to massacre them as well -Asia could have been ruling the world 40 years ago!!!

Currently, if it was my decision, Bin Laden was with no dispute, in Afghanistan when he launched Sept 11 - day 2, Afghanistan should have been nuked - other than drugs, what has it contributed to the world??

Middle East, same scenario - other than terrorism, what have they contributed??? If they disappeared from the map, who would miss them???

Japan's big mistake in WW2 was not to embrace the countries they 'liberated' from the round eyes, but to massacre them as well -

The Nazis made the same mistake in the countries they "liberated" from the Communists.

As for my reply to the post on Attlee, I feel a twit I thought "I'm sure its not Attlee but the Doc is usually right", that's the last time I'll believe somebody who is a Doc. :D :eek:

Brian

I feel sorry for poor Clem, if we had gone to war earlier we would have been slaughtered, we nearly were anyway, I have read some historians who say that he knew it was inevitable but was buying time for us to prepare.

Brian

The Sudetenland wasn't yours to sell.

The Sudetenland wasn't yours to sell.


Then those who bought it, should have jolly well returned it without all the fuss!

Then those who bought it, should have jolly well returned it without all the fuss!

Well yes but the seller did have the right to refuse service to start with.

The Sudetenland wasn't yours to sell.
Who sold Samoa to the US?

http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/donkey-carrot.gif

Who sold Samoa to the US?
Who sold INDIA to the British?

Who sold INDIA to the British?

Nobody, we just borrowed it, made it better then gave it back, when are the Americans and Canadians going to do that to North America?

Brian

Nobody, we just borrowed it, made it better then gave it back, when are the Americans and Canadians going to do that to North America?

Brian

It wasn't borrowed - and in fact they had to fight pretty hard to get their independence.

And as far as Canada and the US goes. Just remember that even England was settled by conquerers and the indiginous population was overcome by invaders from the east. That was never returned to the original people and they were integrated into the country. So what is different? It is just a matter of how long ago it happened.

SOS
Once people start asking daft questions they should not expect sensible answers.

Brian

SOS
Once people start asking daft questions they should not expect sensible answers.

Brian

Well, I was responding with as sensible of answer as Rich gave a sensible question. So, as daft is, daft does.

Well, I was responding with as sensible of answer as Rich gave a sensible question. So, as daft is, daft does.

I think the problem started back with Dan's response to one of my posts, I had assumed that it was tongue in cheek, but from there the thread deteriated and became the usual slanging match, my attempt to lighten it failed miserably.

Brian

I think the problem started back with Dan's response to one of my posts, I had assumed that it was tongue in cheek, but from there the thread deteriated and became the usual slanging match, my attempt to lighten it failed miserably.

Brian

Rich responds with everything I post as if it were an Anglo-American version of Rocky IV.

Knowing this my post was a little mischievous. :p

Rich responds with everything I post as if it were an Anglo-American version of Rocky IV.

Knowing this my post was a little mischievous. :p

No it was deliberately provocative

Who sold INDIA to the British?

Who sold South America to the Spanish or LA to the Yanks?

No it was deliberately provocative

The truth is you find it impossible to respond to anything remotely critical of the UK without shoe-horning the US in as some kind of benchmark.

The trout has been tickled. Thanks for the mild diversion. ;)

The truth is you find it impossible to respond to anything remotely critical of the UK without shoe-horning the US in as some kind of benchmark.

The trout has been tickled. Thanks for the mild diversion. ;)

No, the US has no right moral or otherwise, to take the high ground on this subject

No, the US has no right moral or otherwise, to take the high ground on this subject

See my previous post.

Since the end of the Spanish-American War 1897 the US has been invading, occupping and installing right wing dictators.

what!!? we install right wing dictators? laughing...

our government is completely left. hello........

i'm glad i could give you the entertainment during downtime at work

oh my...if you truly work for them, don't make the mistake of leaving. as the government continues to supersize yourself, you'll be able to buy your own mansion soon!

I believe the British PM most connected to appeasement was Neville Chamberlain.

I believe the British PM most connected to appeasement was Neville Chamberlain.I competely agree and actually said so a couple of days ago

I believe the British PM most connected to appeasement was Neville Chamberlain.
Yes and I concur too:eek:

Chamberlain is being portrayed by current historians in a less negative light than he had been.
It seems he was totally aware that Germany was going to start a war and he was stalling for time with the appeasement process so that Britain could build up its defences. They had been allowed to fall to a dangerously low level under the previous PM Stanley Baldwin.
Chamberlain started the University Air Squadrons so that when the Battle of Britain began there were actually trained pilots available to fly the RAF fighters.
Chamberlain approved the funding for radar.
Chamberlain reactivated several Army reserve regiments.
Chamberlain expanded the Naval Volunteer Reserve.
He did all of this before the war started and he took the hit for cowardly behaviour from the public after the fact (at the time he was hailed as the great agent of peace).

I don't condone the selling out of the Czechs but it was necessary at the time.

He only took measures to start improving our defences because a guy called Winston was making a nuisance of himself.

Among anti-appeasers the name of Winston Churchill (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32413?&docPos=18&backToResults=) inevitably takes first place. Not least in the account given in the first volume of his own war memoirs, The Gathering Storm (1948), Churchill stands as the isolated prophet who consistently warned the government of the dangers posed by Nazi Germany and of the disaster to which the policy of appeasement would inevitably lead. The Churchillian argument suggested that faster British rearmament could have deterred the German dictator and that a readiness to make a stand at crucial moments could have halted Hitler's rake's progress before it was too late

Abcdefghijk;)

i wonder if the boss at work scolded him for being a democrat (or whatever)
:rolleyes:

i wonder if the boss at work scolded him for being a democrat (or whatever)
:rolleyes:

More probably he felt embarrased for not knowing whom the Winston was that Rich refered to.

Brian

He only took measures to start improving our defences because a guy called Winston was making a nuisance of himself.

So are you saying that Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was based on a genuine belief that war could be completely avoided with Germany as opposed to the stalling tactic that Brian was describing?

So are you saying that Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was based on a genuine belief that war could be completely avoided with Germany as opposed to the stalling tactic that Brian was describing?
I believe that Chamberlain's appeasement policy ws based on a genuine belief that war could be avoided. He did have the support of a large majority of the british population at the time. Memories of the horrors of the First World War were still fresh in peoples mind and there was also a feeling that Germany had been harshly treated by the Treaty of Versailles

More probably he felt embarrased for not knowing whom the Winston was that Rich refered to.

Brian
You're being a little unfair there Bri, he/she is after all, American:eek:

So are you saying that Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was based on a genuine belief that war could be completely avoided with Germany as opposed to the stalling tactic that Brian was describing?

No, where did I say it was?

No, where did I say it was?

You didn't. However I don't understand why Chamberlain needed coaxing into preparing for war by the likes of Churchill if he truly believed that war could not be avoided.

You didn't. However I don't understand why Chamberlain needed coaxing into preparing for war
Who said he did?

Currently post#41
and it only makes sense if the He refers to Chamberlain mentioned at length in post#40

He only took measures to start improving our defences because a guy called Winston was making a nuisance of himself.

The question centres on the use of the word "coaxed" Brian

The question centres on the use of the word "coaxed" Brian

Whatever word you want to describe Churchill's required involvement to set Chamberlain into preparation for war is fine with me.

I'd just like to know why such an involvement was required if Chamberlain knew war was inevitable.

Following from this, what was the point of appeasement if

a) He didn't think it would avoid war

or

b) He wasn't buying time to improve Britain's defenses.

Whatever word you want to describe Churchill's required involvement to set Chamberlain into preparation for war is fine with me.

I'd just like to know why such an involvement was required if Chamberlain knew war was inevitable.

Following from this, what was the point of appeasement if

a) He didn't think it would avoid war

or

b) He wasn't buying time to improve Britain's defenses.

Who said that "inolvement was required"?:confused:

Who said that "inolvement was required"?:confused:

You keep answering questions with questions which isn't very helpful.

From what you said:

He only took measures to start improving our defences because a guy called Winston was making a nuisance of himself.

I assumed from this that you were saying that improvement of defences would not have occured without Winston's involvement. If not, what is it that you were saying?

I assumed from this that you were saying that improvement of defences would not have occured without Winston's involvement. If not, what is it that you were saying?
We'll never "really" know, will we;)

The point I was trying to make earlier is that the current historical thinking about Chamberlain is that he knew war was coming.
Britian's defences had fallen to a very low state under the previous PM Stanley Baldwin. This is understandable as the world (and Britain) was going through the worst economic depression in history.
By using appeasement, Chamberlain hoped that war could be put off long enough for Britian to be at least somewhat prepared for it.

Churchill laid off Chamberlain with the exception of the sell out of the Czechs at Munich.

By using appeasement, Chamberlain hoped that war could be put off long enough for Britian to be at least somewhat prepared for it.



I understand this but how this reconciled with the idea that Chamberlain didn't want an active policy of improving defenses.

I understand this but how this reconciled with the idea that Chamberlain didn't want an active policy of improving defenses.

Dan:
If this is addressed to me, please refer to Post 40 in this topic.

If it's addressed to Rich, I would never dream of responding for him.

Dan:
If it's addressed to Rich, I would never dream of responding for him.

Because you're not equipped to do so?

Dan:
If this is addressed to me, please refer to Post 40 in this topic.

Ok thanks for that.

What did you mean by

Churchill laid off Chamberlain with the exception of the sell out of the Czechs at Munich.

Churchill saw what Chamberlain was doing which is appeasing the dictators in exchange for time to build up Britain's defences.
Chamberlain hoped he might get up to five years to accomplish this but appeasing bullies is like put gasoline on a fire.
Churchill was not very happy about the appeasement but he was glad to see that Britain's long neglected defences were getting attention. For the most part he did not launch the kind of attacks against Chamberlain that he had made against Stanley Baldwin. The exception was Munich. He felt that France and Britain together were more than a match for Hitler and that threatening war would make Hitler back down. Niether the Brits or the French were prepared to do that at that time.

Shortly thereafter, Churchill was made First Lord of the Admiralty by Chamberlain and as a privy councillor had to keep his opinions to himself (except in cabinet).

Because you're not equipped to do so?

Why, because I have use of all my faculties? :D

Why, because I have use of all my faculties? :D
And I've still got the use of all my facilities too:p

And I've still got the use of all my facilities too:p

Interesting topic for a poll thread. :D