The Mythology of Munich

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/21/2008 2:04:49 PM

    Let's see now. When we win the war against Al Qaeda, who will sign the document of unconditional surrender? What is his name? Where is he? Or her? Is he the "Terror" that we went to war against? How do we know when we have won?

  • Posted By: Wazzon @ 06/21/2008 12:41:02 PM

    Dear verybadcat, no matter how alike are Al Quaeda and nazis the similarities end when we come to power. Nazis got the most advanced war machine in the world, they controlled most of Europe, and they've got powerful allies (Japan for instance). Al Quaeda has none of the former. No matter how close to each other in terms of ideology they still are different - Al Quaeda is a bunch of terrorists, and Nazi Germany was a
    superpower.

  • Posted By: verybadcat @ 06/21/2008 11:26:51 AM

    The article fails to mention the most dangerous form of appeasement promoted by the Democrats. That is appeasement of Al Qaeda.

    Al Qaeda and the Nazis share the following characteristics:

    * A propensity to murder people they don't like.
    * A propensity to liken Jews to various animals
    * A desire their ideology to much or all of the world
    * A leader who many people in their respective heartlands found appealing and charismatic

    Furthermore, like the Nazis, Al Qaeda has a clearly stated war aim. It is to drive the Americans out of Iraq.

    Giving in to this would be appeasement of the highest order.

  • Posted By: verybadcat @ 06/21/2008 11:26:37 AM

    The article fails to mention the most dangerous form of appeasement promoted by the Democrats. That is appeasement of Al Qaeda.

    Al Qaeda and the Nazis share the following characteristics:

    * A propensity to murder people they don't like.
    * A propensity to liken Jews to various animals
    * A desire their ideology to much or all of the world
    * A leader who many people in their respective heartlands found appealing and charismatic

    Furthermore, like the Nazis, Al Qaeda has a clearly stated war aim. It is to drive the Americans out of Iraq.

    Giving in to this would be appeasement of the highest order.

  • Posted By: underdog @ 06/16/2008 5:11:31 PM

    When you vote for a president you expect him to make sound decisions for the good of the country. Bush started down the right road by attacking the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afgahanistan. Had he done just that, and followed up with helping Afghanistan become a free democracy he probably would have been remembered fairly for his international policies, his national policies still suck. But, by invading Iraq, and compleletly botching the political side fe that fiasco he will be remembered as one of our worst presidents, He will be leaving office with the US weaker in international standing. The world hates us. The next president is going to have to work that much harder to undo a lot of damage done under Bush. The worst part, George still does not see it that way. Somewhere he has lost touch with reality.

    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 06/17/2008 9:22:51 AM

      When I vote for a president, I want someone who has US interests in mind First, to hell with what the world thinks of us. We have been hated for so long by the very countries we have continuously helped. I want a president who's chief concern is maintaining the safety and security of our country and upholding the constitution and our freedoms. Not someone who will succomb or appease other countries by becoming more like them. We used to be a beacon of freedom. Now we are more or less a laughing stock - not because of Bush, but rather because we are so concerned with being politically correct and liked that we have gone from being the Super power to becoming the worlds doormat. Worse thing about it is that many Americans are too blind to see what has been happening to our country.

      My wife and I watched Indana Jones and the crystal skull last night and I found it ironic the comment that the russian woman made... That we would become like them and wouldn't even know it. Talk about something that is happening more and more with each passing day! We vote in marxist theologies slowly and are becoming more of a society that relies heavily upon the government to take care of us more and more with social programs. Bit by bit we give government more control over us. It won't be long before we are a Socialist Republic of America at this rate. Isn't it one of our presidential candidates that made comments that he will "require" and "demand" of us to follow a certain path. And our citizens cheer him for it, when in the past he would have been driven out of town on a rail....

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/17/2008 10:10:02 AM

        I'm assuming you're referring to this comment about Obama, made by his wife: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. ... Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual -- uninvolved, uninformed."
        This comment is rightly cheered, and no one back in the day would have driven him out of town on a rail.

        You can't say, "To hell with what the world thinks of us." We live in an ever-increasingly globalized community. We can't expect our actions to have no impact on other countries. I care what other countries think of us, because other countries are vital to our economy and well-being. Who do you think buys our exports? Supplies our oil? Helps us during natural disasters? Joins in to help fight this baseless war? We don't do it alone, but we surely will soon with attitudes like yours.
        We are a laughing stock because we are no longer a beacon of freedom, you're correct. But we lost that respect when we started invading other countries that did not provoke us, starting with Vietnam. The Bush administration does NOT uphold the constitution and our freedoms, but rather have eroded them.

        • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 06/18/2008 10:07:15 AM

          Actually the comments were about demanding that we are involved in universal health and other socialistic ideas.

          Not provoked? I guess that all the terrorist attacks that happened while Clinton was in office (USS Cole, Embassies in Africa, etc... leading up to the attack in New York (because we failed to respond) doesn't constitute being provoked? I guess a countries failure to comply with UN sanctions, inspections, etc due to the world belief that they were engaged in building weapons of mass destruction (By the way, Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people and against other countries during the first Gulf war), but I guess all of this in your opinion is "unprovoked"?

          Guess what.... for those who have lived under this bubble and never traveled the world, The opinion of the US has always been pretty low. A great deal of it comes from jealosy over freedoms, some come becaus US tourists expect everyone to cater to them.... "But kissing up to every country for the sake of "looking good" or worrying about what they think" is total BS. Trying to please everyone is a waste of time because we will never succeed. Our first and foremost thoughts should be for the welfare of our own. Do you honestly think that these countries we are worried about pleasing have our welfare in mind over their own? If so, please wake up. I say to hell with what they think not meaning to completely discount them, but more so under my own personal phylosophy. I personnally don't give a rats A$$ what people think of me because the most important thing to me is being able to look myself in the eye in a mirror and know that I am doing my honest best. What I think of myself is much more important to me than what someone else thinks....... (may or may not come out right)

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/18/2008 12:06:27 PM

            Bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole, Yemen, and 9/11 attacks. Not Saddam. Bin Laden was supported by radical fundamentalists from Pakistan, Egypt, Africa, and Turkey mainly. He was based out of Afghanistan and is (exiled) Saudi royalty. Where in ANY of those does IRAQ come into the picture? Yes, we were provoked. We were right to invade Afghanistan. Then we got sidetracked by Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks, as has been proven time and time again by intelligence reports. Bush Sr. had Saddam in his sights during the Persian Gulf war, yet let him go because he knew that taking out Saddam would destabilize the entire region. Sometimes we don't always like the means it takes to justify the end, as in, we knew Saddam was a terrible leader--but we knew it would be worse if he was taken out. Unfortunately, Bush lacks the intelligence to comprehend military strategy. Even Colin Powell, a highly intelligent, respectable military leader, washed his hands of the mess years ago.

            Do you really think Iran, Saudi Arabia, most countries in Africa, North Korea, China, etc. treat their citizens any better? Why have we not invaded them? Don't say because they don't harbor and fund terrorists, because they do. We have terrorists in America. Iraq was probably one of the least likely source of funding for terrorism under Saddam's despotic rule.

            I respect your service to this country, I really do. I respect all those in uniform. You can love your military, and be proud of your service, while at the same time disagreeing with the wars you are sent to. You don't have to believe the hu-ah (I know I misspelled that, but you get the point) jarhead propaganda fed to you. Not every war is a moral or just war.

            And lastly, it's not about kissing up to other countries for the sake of looking good or caring about what they think. You're simplified global politics to high school rhetoric. Globalization requires us all to consider our impacts on the global community, and play nice with each other. If we follow your "I don't give a damn!" tactics, we certainly won't give a damn because we'll all be dead!

            • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 06/20/2008 11:53:06 PM

              Since everyone likes playing the blame game, I will join in. Osama wasn't responsible for these attacks against the US. (Physically yes he was). If you look at the big picture, the blame would fall on Bill Clinton who failed to respond when US citizens were being attacked. Rather than living up to his oath to support and defend the constitution and his duties as president to ensure National Security, all he did was act like a weak parent who threatens their children but never follows through. Constant threats of "If you do it again we will retaliate" yet over and over again... he made no action. Instead we lost a lot of lives....

            • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 06/20/2008 11:49:48 PM

              Wheter or not we agree with the war, we are in it and need to see it through. At the time of the Iraq initiative, the intelligence reports throughout the world did indicate that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. George Bush wasn't the only world leader deciding to go in, there were and still are other countries out there involved. In addition to the intelligence reports, congressional leaders (both democrat and republican) came out and not only voted to go to war, but stood firmly behind it. Now, supposed intel reports come out saying there weren't these weapons. But you are trying to use hindsight as a way of blaming one man... Bush. You can't armchair quarterback in these things. Fact of the matter is that we all believed the original reports and made the decision. It isn't as if he hadn't used these types of weapons before... how soon do we forget the first gulf war in the 90's. Additionally he was an evil dictator. The Iraq people are much better off now than under his regine, so regardless of the original intent, some good was resulted in his removal. Bottom line fast forwarding to the now, we are still trying to help them establish their government. Let us not forget how long it took the US when we broke from Britain - yet some of us expect overnight miracles. There are insurgents and terrorists (mainly non iraqis) who are doing what they can to keep the government from moving forward. No matter what the reason for starting all of this (good or bad), how can you think that we should abandone them now when they need the help the most? None of this is "jarhead propoganda", it is basic common sense (which in todays society is very rare I know). I simply find it amazing that people who were for the war are now acting as if they never were. This is not respectful of our military nor is it supportive. How simple it is to armchair quarterback when one is so far from the real affects and only has propaganda generated new media spinning and showing only what suits their agenda. You want to talk about propaganda just ask anyone who has been involved in actual combat what they think of what is reported by our media.

        • Posted By: Nins @ 06/17/2008 11:46:49 AM

          Summer is right. We should care very much what the world thinks of us and how we are perceived. All of us, as nations and as individuals, require input to help guide us through life. Recognizing that others have the right and the duty to give us input helps us to steer the proper course morally and financially. Not only has Geo. W. Bush refused to listen to what world leaders are saying, he has refused to listen to his own advisors, and refused to listen to the American people. He hides behind the religious right and laughs all the way to his offshore bank account.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/20/2008 4:32:52 PM

    Nins:Whats this ''once proud nation''garbage? You forget that Roosevelt locked up over one hundred thousand Americans without their being charged with a single crime,all under the auspices of an Executive Order. The ''air''is vastly cleaner than it was three and four decades ago. ''US corporations''were sending the vast machinery of their manufacturing overseas under trade agreements approved of by Clinton and Gore while both were in office. Routine violations of the Geneva Convention were more rampant under the ''Greatest Generation''than they ever were under Bush. To cite only one example,on July 14,1943,over 200 Italian civilians and soldiers were summarily executed by members of the Oklahoma National Guard[5th Army],while in action outside of Messina,Sicily.
    To cite another,on Sept.24,1943 in the port of Bari,Italy,a German airraid struck a United States supply ship riding at anchor loaded with mustard gas.A gross violation of the Geneva Accords,the ship,as it blew up,spread the deadly gas throughout the town proper,killing over two thousand civilians and servicemen over the following month.'Friendly fire''incidents took the lives of thousands in just this one campaign of the Second World War.
    Pass to the mortgage mess and I find it curious that most of the benefactors of the largesse bestowed by these shifty loan companies are nearly all Democrats. The most recent casualty,Obamas own advisor[Johnson]. At least two serving Democrat senators[Dodd and Conrad],as well as former Clintonistas that may serve in an Obama administration [Shalala,and Holbrooke],are also on the list.[Yesterdays USA TODAY goes into more detail regarding the present hypocrisy surrounding this issue,and may be archived at www.realclearpolitics.com].

  • Posted By: stuart44 @ 06/20/2008 4:05:10 AM

    Just browsing a Churchill blog when you can imagine my surprise at seeing a mention of a Newsweek article titled ???What would Winston Do????. I recently published a book on Amazon.com called ???What Would Churchill Do? ??? Business advice from the man who saved the world???. Whilst the titles are similar the content of my book is very different to the excellent article.
    If a country doesn???t want to put itself in a position where it might have to do a Munich type deal then it has to retain a strong military and show that it is prepared to act when confronted.
    Appeasement was Chamberlain faced with a vastly superior, aggressive military power and trying to meet the wishes of the British people and avoid war. The same mood prevailed in America by way of isolationism and ???it???s a far off country and not our concern??? which is why Roosevelt campaigned on the platform that ???I won???t be sending your boys abroad??? in the 1940 election campaign. Winning votes for isolationism whilst doing all he could to help Britain.
    The lesson of Munich is the lesson of what happened between 1918 and 1938 when the world and especially America and Britain failed to implement the treaty of Versailles and turned a blind eye to the resurgence of German military power. Hitler could have been stopped on many occasions had the signatories to the treaty been prepared to stand up to him in the early thirties while he flouted his obligations and they had superior military strength.
    Once you let a mad charismatic leader gain a significant military advantage over you then you are likely to start look for ways of appease him, rather than risk the consequences.
    For America today the lesson of Munich is to show strength in stopping problems that by turning a blind eye to long enough will lead to further major conflict and bloodshed.
    Negotiating from a position of strength isn???t appeasement it is just practical.

  • Posted By: ebr@sterlingaccounting.net @ 06/19/2008 9:25:58 PM

    jonathan alter: you couldn't really mean that we can not have an opinion on michelle obama's speech
    without having met her. this is ludicrous at best. face it, it was a big mistake, no matter what she
    supposedly meant. she did say "really" proud, with most of the great media skipping the very significant
    modifier. we can make our own judgments. amen for cspan

    n

  • Posted By: ebr@sterlingaccounting.net @ 06/19/2008 9:19:27 PM

    does alter really thing that you can't have a opinion on michelle obama's speech, because you
    have not met her. this is ludicrous at best. maybe, he and others in the media "know " her, but
    what about the millions of us that do not. i guess we're just supposed to rely on his brilliance.

  • Posted By: jrgfla @ 06/19/2008 10:15:00 AM

    This attempt to rewrite history to fit the editors and writers political bias is shameful. I know the response, "If we just play nice, those who wish to destroy us will realize the folly of their ways and put away their bombs." I'm sorry, but mankind requires a rule of law. The advancement of civilization has only come from the gradual development of law, including respect and consideration of others' beliefs and lifestyles. Those who wish to destroy cannot be ignored, unless we wish to consign ourselves to the trash heap of history, right next to the Romans, Britons, etc.

    • Posted By: paulsmithdead @ 06/19/2008 5:01:55 PM

      Good God, man, your right! I wouldn't want to, um, consign ourselves with the likes of the Romans and the Britons. I mean, the Briton's for God's sake! How could anyone desire the fate of the pitiful British! You might as well live in Darfur, if you ask me! And I totally understand where you're coming from on the whole Roman thing. I mean, they sooo appeased everyone. Weak.

      And how dare the author use both commonly accepted and well-documented facts to re-write history?! That really shakes my soda can. He ain't gonna fool me, no sir. Even though he said diplomacy isn't black and white, and that soft speaking and a big stick can be used together, I know what he really meant--that we all should be a bunch of sissy communists and give in to our enemies' most craven desires! But that will only embolden the terrorrists! Do not let this false prophet lead you astray!

      You're right, we need a rule of law! Hell, maybe more than one! And talking with people only erodes that law. Does the law negotiate with criminals? No. So we can't negotiate with governments that piss us off, because then we aren't the law. If we don't talk with them, then we are the law, so we're right, because we are upholding a rule of law, which is the only way to advance civilization! Don't these countries know it hurts us more than it hurts them (on an emotional level), and that it's for their own good? Why can't those liberal sissies understand this like we do? Right on, jrgfla!

  • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/19/2008 2:28:27 PM

    Countrywide and friends are big backers of Obama and his friends in the senate are trying to "pump" 60 billion into this market to save these fraudulant mortgage banks. There is a reason why Feds are moving fast on this case right now. They may not get a chance once the Messiah comes to power.. Naive Americans. Real estate seems top be Obama's strength.

  • Posted By: votenic @ 06/19/2008 10:51:48 AM

    The only thing I got out of that article was that the leaders who saved their country would not back down from their beliefs and their belief in the people. And therefore would lay their lives on the line for what they believed.
    http://www.votenic.com

  • Posted By: steve02001 @ 06/18/2008 8:10:00 PM

    The moral of this story could be: Beware of politicans using Nazi Germany analogies; for they usually do not know what they are talking about.

  • Posted By: xterra @ 06/18/2008 11:14:15 AM

    The story on Munich, with one of its aims being to dispel cliches, is more than slightly ironic. The notion that "Ronald Reagan negotiated from a position of strength" after having brought the USSR and the US closer to conflict than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis is not only revisionist history, it is blatantly pro-American and uneducated. Indeed, it was the silly, costly SDI program that prevented a deal on the abolition of nuclear arms at Reykjavik.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/18/2008 6:58:08 PM

      The deal against pro hibition of nuclear arms would of been bad for America. Reagan did deal from a position of strength. And SDI although expensive was and still is the only possible strategy for winning a nuclear war. Not that anyone can win but it would give us a better chance of surviving. SDI would also be very effective against a single rogue missile which is what our most likely threat is at this time.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/18/2008 3:29:09 PM

    Truthseeker: Change your handle. This is dishonest. Bush,[Prescott],never ''funnelled money to Nazi bank accounts through out the war''. Futher,Gen.Butler did not cite Bushs UNION Bank[of which he only held one share. The rest were held in majority by the Harriman family] in his ''Business Plot''testimony before Congress in 1934. He cited these guys instead:

    STANDARD OIL[The Rockefellers]

    US Steel[The Carnegies]

    GENERAL MOTORS

    DU PONT

    CHASE Banking.

    It pays to observe that dealing with the Nazis financially during the 1930s was not illegal. Indeed,virtually all of the above companies including JP MORGAN,GOODYEAR Rubber,and FORD did business with both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan all through the 1930s. Prescotts involvement is traced to a singular source,the Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen,who fled Germany in 1939 after he became an opponant to the regime.There is no evidence whatever that Bush maintained any contacts with high Nazi officials either during,nor after this period. The BBC,several years ago,attempted to paint a ''guilt-by-association'' label on Bush due to his directorship of the HAMBURG ocean trade and passenger shipping lines but could not make anything stick as his discussions with Thysssen antedated his fleeing from Germany in 1939. Today,THYSSEN Engineering is contracted all over the US in many large construction ventures,despite their involvement,after the departure of Thyssen,along with SIEMENS,VOLKSWAGEN,PORSCHE,DAILMER-BENZ,KRUPP,ZURN, and other German corporations,in the use of slave labour after the wars beginning. America uses all of their products on a daily basis. Then too,the fathers of Americas NASA program were all Nazis,brought to the US in 1945-46 under the auspices of the CIA and the Truman administration in Operation PAPERCLIP,which was designed to ''get our hands on our Nazis before the Russians made them their Nazis''.The atom bomb,polarized glass,the jet engine,synthetic oil,battery-recharging of submarines,improved aspirin pain relief,leading to Ibuprofren,all were advances made by either Germans who fled the regime,or Nazis captured after its demise.

    Also see: ''The Agency:The Rise and Decline of the CIA'' Ranelaugh,John. Touchstone Books.1991. ''In The Service of the Republic''.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/18/2008 6:54:06 PM

      So Bush wasn't concieved using Hitlers Sperm?

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/18/2008 3:57:33 PM

    ''What Would Winston Do''?

    He would have invaded Iran. Which is precisely what he did on August 25,1941,sending in a British division led by Gen. Sir Edward Quinan[Operation COUNTENANCE], capturing the Iranian port of Abadan and destroying the Iranian Navy,before moving into Tehran which was captured on Sept.17,1941. In order to block the regions oil supplies from reaching the Germans,he also had Gen.Sir Archibald Wavells British force capture the Iraqi port of Basra at the same time.

  • Posted By: amicuspublilius @ 06/16/2008 10:23:46 AM

    All of this is great, but at the end of the day Americans know that Obama has a knee-jerk wussie reaction to national security. Talk all you want, Newsweek.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/16/2008 11:48:36 AM

      Obama is far from being a "wussie" as you so illiterately suggest, despite your Latin name.

      Obama is actually a bit of a hawk, but one that thinks ahead, which is the opposite of "knee-jerk." He wants to increase the military budget, replace worn equipment and put more men and women in uniform. He wants to aggressively go after Al Queda and Bin Laden in Afganistan. This is what we should have been doing all along, instead of wasting lives and money in Iraq, with the end result of strengthening Iran (by fighting their enemy Iraq for them) and giving Al Queda not only the opportunity to escape in Afganistan, but the means to spread into Iraq, where they never were before. Not to mention that the international community now views the USA as an opportunistic bully who trumped up fake weapons of mass destruction charges, invaded Iraq solely to steal their oil, and then failed to even obtain the oil, causing a major civil war, tragic suffering and increased instability in the middle east. The Iraq war has been an economic and foreign policy DISASTER.

      You don't have to be as intelligent as Obama to see these truths. Seventy seven percent of Americans are aware of these issues, and scorn Bush for causing this debacle. The fact that Obama is willing to act to repair some of the damage does not make him a "wuss." It makes him a man with a conscience who is willing to rectify the wrongs we have done.

      But trust me, you will see the steely edge of Obama in Afganistan and against Al Queda, wherever they hide. You will also see the tough diplomat. It was the mindless hawks (like Cheney, et al) who got us into this mess, and it's the clear thinking diplomats (like Obama) who will get us out. Hawks make you unsafe because they incite anger and war-like behavior by running around threatening people. Diplomats make you safe because they diffuse anger and open new ways for other people to express their greivances without war or terrorism.

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/16/2008 12:19:21 PM

        Japanese diplomats worked very hard telling us everything we wanted to hear just before Pearl Harbor. German Diplomats worked wonders keeping the British at bay until Churchill stood up to them. The Iranian Diplomats are currently telling us about their peacefull attempts at harnesing Nuclear energy to provide electricity. There is a place for diplomacy and place for reality.

        I would not agree with the premis that Obama is a wuss but calling him a bit of a hawk is just silly. The war against terror is in both Iraq and afganistan. The people who want to kill Americans are stacking up in Iraq they may have not ;have been there before but they are there now. We chose the battlefield now we have to finish the fight it would be incredibly unfair to the Iraqi people to invite all the bad elements in the islamic world to their country and then to abandom them. The Iraqi people are not our enemy. The Iraqi people just had the misfortune of being ruled by a man that was very dangerous to America so we eliminated him and now we can't leave Iraq to be run by the Maqtada al Sadrs of the world with no checks on thier power or worse by Al Qaida. The things we have in common with the militias is both want to see Iraq run rule of law not by extremely hypocritical Al qaida leaders. We both want the Iraqi people to prosper and benefit from the new Iraq.



        .

        • Posted By: Nins @ 06/16/2008 12:39:53 PM

          Sorry, One, but your premises are not correct. Saddam Hussein was not "very dangerous to America." Saddam Hussein did NOT indulge in terrorism against America, not did he allow terrorist organizations to take hold in Iraq. He was a despotic dictator, but he actually did a MUCH better job at governing Iraq and keeping terrorism in check than we have. And by the time we invaded, Iraq was so weak from losing the war against Kuwait, the ongoing wars with Iran and ten years of economic sanctions that Iraq and Saddam posed no threat to anyone.

          If we were really interested in stopping Al Queda, we should have stayed in Afganistan, finished the job, then moved on to fight Al Queda in Somalia, instead of trying to rob Iraq of it's oil. And as much as I find that motive distasteful, I find it still worse that we didn't even get the oil. Didn't Bush and Cheney realize that the Iraqis wold blow up the wells and the refineries, and that the ensuing chaos would make it impossible to rebuild them?

          But as to abandoning the Iraqi people, I would say that Obama has excellent strategies for effectively building a REAL democracy in Iraq, which has NEVER been Bush's intention.

          Read Obama's Audacity of Hope for more information on his Iraq strategy.

          • Posted By: USSMC1 @ 06/16/2008 1:13:35 PM

            I couldn't agree more with regards to the "technical approach" with regards to Iraq.
            Destabilizing Iraq was a huge mistake since they were a counter balance to Iran's ambitions in the area, however one can't refute the fact that some intervention was needed there both for geo political and economic interests.
            I've seen a few really idiotic posts relating to how Bush destroyed our economy and army etc..., however those speaking lack not only the intelligence but the simplest ounce of common sense.
            Our "*** laude" ill fated Clinton administration took about 8 years to destroy our military and intelligence capabilities brick by brick. Get informed before you report a *** load of nonsense.
            I???ve seen a post labeling the Russians as ???brave??? and Churchill as an idiot who let them die. Well how brave were they when they ripped Poland ½ with their buddies the Nazis?
            Ha! Churchill was a mastermind of war time politics and psychology in warfare and if the Americans would have let more of those *** die at ???Stalingrad??? before we propped their lousy asses with ammunition and resources we could have trounced both *** at the same time. Roosevelt was plagued by an inefficient inept democratic congress, just as it is the case right now.
            I'll tell you what Mr Obama or Barack or whatever his name might be will have his strings pulled by the idiots who rule the Democraticc slurpie wagon...aka Pelossy and co...the PMS machine, and indulging in those beliefs will prove catastrophic for us if Iran does achieve their ultimate goals in the area.
            And just to make sure that I indulge the original poster, I am not sure where you get your information regarding obama???s ???intuitive??? war strategies. I think those both act as an engulfing oxi moron by definition and perhaps you and all the other obamaniacs should take a closer look at demagogy in action because I have never heard speeches lacking more substance in my entire life. His ???war strategies??? and politics are ill fated, and will prove so in the short term if elected, for the global environment we live in both politically and economic I would rather avoid having fanatic governments of an intolerant religion in control of anything.

            • Posted By: Iamnotamused @ 06/16/2008 2:34:47 PM

              If I'm not mistaken, and I'm not, I believe it was Bush's croonie Rumsfeld who wanted to do away with the U.S. Army because according to him "they are worthless". I give you that Clinton cut the military forces but that was because we were in a time of peace. That is what took 8 yrs. to do but Dumbya, without so much as a fart in the wind, took us into a war on TWO separate fronts knowing we didn' t have enough military to cover both. I'm not in the military (but I'm an army brat turned army wife) and even I know that it is a dumb thing to do by stretching your military forces too thin. Who is protecting the US while they are being killed in the world's largest sandbox????

              The military "intelligence" that we had that was part of the catalyst for us going to war with Iraq was fake. We have no REAL way of knowing if those were actually taken in Iraq. It was already proven that no WMD existed but by then it was too late. The damage had been done and now the only reason we are there is to try to give them time to get their sh..t together and rebuild their infrastructure.

              No oil for us though...tsk tsk. That is why we were there in the first place.

              As for Al-Queda being in Iraq, they weren't there until we invaded. The Iraqis didn't want us there (and are powerless to stop us being there) and Saddam, like someone stated, did a darn good job of keeping them at bay in his own country.

              Because of that ONE stupid act, invading Iraq, the entire world hates US. They were behind us (at least Britain was before Tony Blair got ousted and even then it wasn't popular on their soil either) to invade Iraq, but they pulled out and UN wouldn't touch it with a 2 inch toothpick. We are all alone in that war and we are getting our butts handed to us left and right. Our soldiers are dying and being maimed and for what? Nothing.

              I'm sorry you think that diplomacy is not where it's at but Speaking Softly and Carrying a Big Stick means just that and if you don't know what it is that your enemies want how are you going to EVER end it? It's like two old people having an argument that lasts for eons and when you ask them what they are fighting about neither one of them can remember.

              • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/18/2008 12:12:02 PM

                Your last paragraph sums up the crux of this whole thing perfectly!

              • Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/16/2008 3:15:59 PM

                Good analysis. Al-Qaeda has become a blanket, banner name for terror groups targeting America, and like you said, they did not have any measurable presence in Iraq prior to our invasion. Our $600B war has done nothing more than inflame a good portion of the country into *adopting* the name Al-Qaeda.

                As far as our military goes, it has not received very much of the money or resources put into the war. I recently read about one of the saddest events I've ever heard of - a Green Beret *electrocuted* in the shower of his own base by faulty wiring that was inspected, and found faulty, but *not fixed*, by Kellogg, Brown, and Root, on a cost-plus (read: cover whatever is billed) basis, because their contract didn't cover it. Sewage is backing up in other bases. It's a pretty sad disservice to what our military was back in WWII, when I believe one of our troops would have gone and fixed the wiring himself, and then like as not, shot any gouging contractors right in the arm they would've used to type up these bills that are bankrupting our legitimate military. The money gouged by all our contractors could have gone into *strengthening* the American troops who *have* taken the oath of loyalty to the U.S. that all troops take upon enlistment or appointment to officer status. (I remember taking that oath myself, a fairly profound experience in my life.)

                The Roman Empire was bankrupted in part in the end by reliance on *mercenaries* with no real loyalty to their nation. It's sad that so many people use this to justify racial hatreds today against minorities, because the actual mercenaries involved in this struggle are Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, and all the other unaffiliated contractors who have not taken a loyalty oath and whose actions seem to reflect that. Our military has been *severely* weakened by this conflict, as the actual and legitimate American Army has seen hardly a fraction of what's been taxed, borrowed, and spent on mercenary warfare here, and it makes me want to shed tears for those troops who remain loyal to actual American principle and get killed or horribly wounded - physically or psychologically or both - so that Halliburton/KBR/Blackwater's books balance.

                Odd that no news service has reported on the fact that Halliburton was heading towards bankruptcy as a result of bad asbestos-litigation-related debt resulting from its merger-style purchases of smaller building contractors, even as late as 2004. They're out of it now. I personally don't recall signing off on a terrible war designed to cover bad military-industrial merger asbestos debt, myself.

            • Posted By: loriw @ 06/16/2008 5:27:55 PM

              to USSMC1 "Clinton administration took about 8 years to destroy our military and intelligence capabilities"
              I couldn't agree with you more. Our foreign policy was going down the crapper while the US was trying to figure out what happened between Bill and Monica etc. A lot of people want to blame the Bush administration for 9/11 but I say that the terrorists were well into their planning and plot before Bush was elected. Bush inherited 9/11 from the Bill years.

              • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/17/2008 3:20:08 PM

                planning- they had already attacked our shitps in harbour our barracks in Saudi arabia two of our Embassies in Africa and made a feeble attack on the WTC itself. While most of America was celebrating New YEars eve 2000 A lot of our intelligence community was working their ass off with limited information trying to avert an attack on the hundreds of soft targets that spring up anually here in the US.

          • Posted By: USSMC1 @ 06/16/2008 1:05:24 PM

            I couldn't agree more with regards to the "technical approach" with regards to Iraq.
            Destabilizing Iraq was a huge mistake since they were a counter balance to Iran's ambitions in the area, however one can't refute the fact that some intervention was needed there both for geo political and economic interests.
            I've seen a few really idiotic posts relating to how Bush destroyed our economy and army etc..., however those speaking lack not only the intelligence but the simplest ounce of common sense.
            Our "*** laude" ill fated Clinton administration took about 8 years to destroy our military and intelligence capabilities brick by brick. Get informed before you report a *** load of nonsense.
            I???ve seen a post labeling the Russians as ???brave??? and Churchill as an idiot who let them die. Well how brave were they when they ripped Poland ½ with their buddies the Nazis?
            Ha! Churchill was a mastermind of war time politics and psychology in warfare and if the Americans would have let more of those *** die at ???Stalingrad??? before we propped their lousy asses with ammunition and resources we could have trounced both *** at the same time. Roosevelt was plagued by an inefficient inept democratic congress, just as it is the case right now.

        • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/16/2008 3:54:35 PM

          If Michelle does not call him a hawk, who will?

  • Posted By: adirondack_1 @ 06/16/2008 2:13:35 PM

    What you fail to envision is the loss of life hanging in the ballance is a hundred times greater than what was lost in WWII. The idea that making a mistake so simple as to allow a regime to even exist that would throw the planet back into war is preposterous. The lesson was not about appeasement it was about tolerance. Should there be tolerance for any rivalry is the question. When the bully begins flexing his arm and makes a fist it would be logical to assume you are going to risk a blow unless you strike first. There lies the lesson.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/18/2008 12:09:47 PM

      Um, I'm pretty sure the bully was flexing his arm and making a fist before we entered WWII. We allowed him to hit us first. WWII could be considered one of the most successful, just wars in history. Ever since then, we've taken the stance of attacking before attacked...and yet are surprised when these battles fail.

  • Posted By: xterra @ 06/18/2008 11:14:01 AM

    The story on Munich, with one of its aims being to dispel cliches, is more than slightly ironic. The notion that "Ronald Reagan negotiated from a position of strength" after having brought the USSR and the US closer to conflict than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis is not only revisionist history, it is blatantly pro-American and uneducated. Indeed, it was the silly, costly SDI program that prevented a deal on the abolition of nuclear arms at Reykjavik.

  • Posted By: TheTruthSeeker @ 06/16/2008 11:01:02 PM

    I find this article funny as it never touches on the fact of several important things that link Bush family with the very people of Munich and the evil Nazi regime of that era. Not only did Prescott (Bush's grandfather) get caught funneling money from his business to Nazi bank accounts through out the war. But had also tried worked with prominent bankers and industrialists to setup a fascist coup against FDR. Don't believe me? Look up General Smedley D. Buttler who was the whistleblower who brought the coup attempt to the knowledge of congress.
    We will see peace when we hold ourselves accountable for seeking the truth and one thing that this article does demonstrate is there will always be a grey area. Not a simple black and white one so it will only be us who seek the truth that will allow us to make more attentive decisions when it comes to future of this great nation.

    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 06/17/2008 9:05:57 AM

      I find it funny that you would judge a person based upon what his grandparents may or may not have done. Should we dig up your ancestors past in order to discredit any comment you might make? What does the bible say.... something to the effect of looking at a mote in someone elses eye while neglecting the beam in your own? I wouldn't want to be judged by what me ancestors may or may not have done.... it isn't who I am. Seems like the "holier than thou" type of person is the ones who quickly point out what so an so's ancestor does.... Some of us have a heritage coming from Germany... does that make us all guilty for the Holocaust and Naziism that perhaps our great grandparents and other ancestors may have participated in? This post is not an attempt to seek the truth, this is an attempt to further hatred and division

      • Posted By: Nins @ 06/17/2008 11:34:50 AM

        Dear Retired, I agree with you that you can not judge a person based upon what anyone else has done. You must judge a person upon their own merits. However, I do believe that what TruthSeeker has written about Prescott Bush is relevant for Americans to know. The Bush family has had some shady ways of making money, including Prescott's dealing with the Nazis, and including Geo. W. Bush's war for oil in Iraq. It is no coinicidence that Dubya is a Texas oil tycoon, that Cheney owns Halliburton, and that Halliburton's subsididaries are making billions off of the Iraq war. Where do those billions come from? The US National Treasury. The National Debt goes up, up, up while the Treasury goes down, down, down. Where is that money disappearing to? Right into the bank accounts and corporations owned by Bush, Cheney and their cronies.

        So in this case, TruthSeeker's point is quite valid.

        • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 06/18/2008 9:50:54 AM

          Eneryone points at Bush and says it is a war for oil. Having Bbeen there for a few years, I have yet to see any oil advantage. I saw a dictator removed. I saw peoples live change for the better (and yes the majority thank us continually - something the media doesn't show). I have actually seen a great deal of good. But at over $4 a gallon for gas, I just can't see how anyone justifies their comments about the war being for Oil. We have other allies just as committed to the war in Iraq as us. (Are they in it for the oil too?) Point is that a great many fingers are being pointed at Bush but no substance behind them. I am not defending him because although I think he started of great and has done some good for the US, here at the end he has been lacking. But to be fair, substance should be behind any accusation. The liberal side has been all over him from day one. Liberal congress has fought against him instead of fighting for the people. Seems like priorities are completely screwed up. If congress would allow us to drill for our own oil, we wouldn't be dependent on these foreign countries, nor would we be paying to arm them. But the blame is game is played pointing at Bush rather than at the other elected officials who are supposed to be working for "the people". Special interest minorities have more influence than the American people. We are being surpassed in greatness as a country by everyone because of our own stupidity

        • Posted By: Nins @ 06/17/2008 11:37:44 AM

          I would like to add, Retired Marine, that I really enjoy reading your posts and respect your thoughts.

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/17/2008 3:02:27 PM

            Did you know the nazis smuggled Hitlers sperm in Submarines and implanted it in Barbara Bush. WIth the consent of George Bush. And then the Nazi's helped George Bush rise to power in the Cia where he put operatives in place to insure he would become vice president to Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately the Bush assasination of Reagan Failed in 1982. Bush was certain Reagan would step down rather than seek a second term so he called off all future assasinations. The Nazi's told Bush He would surely win the presidency if Ronald Reagan was allowed to finish his term Bush reluctantly agreed. After Joseph Mengele died in a mysterious swimming accident in south america the Nazi's lost there core leadership and with the emergence of Ross Perot Challenging Bush for the nazi thrown the presidency was lost to Bill Clinton. After 8 years of Prosperity in America the Nazi party and Bush decided it was time for change so they Used Jeb Bush the then Governor of Florida to rig the election for his older brother (and spawn of Hitler) to Steal the election forever sealing the fate of America. The Bushes Met with the Bin Ladens and devised a plan that would overthrow the balance of power in the middle east and Ensure that Dick Cheney could forward the interest of the Nazi party.

            Well I will probably be killed for stating these facts but good luck fellow bloggers the truth had to be told.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse