Posted on 02/16/2022 5:42:45 PM PST by whyilovetexas111
“Appeasement,” “Munich,” and the years of 1938-9 retain immense rhetorical power when invoked by political and media actors in the English-speaking world. In the media landscape, foreign policy pundits often insinuate that to negotiate with rivals is to risk repeating the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain, the pre-World War II British Prime Minister who is said to have “given away” a part of Czechoslovakia in exchange for “peace in our time.” Subsequent events cast the phrase into infamy.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
Would you consider yourself to be paleocon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
Obama let Putin seize a desirable part of Ukraine unopposed. No part of Ukraine was seized during Trump’s administration.
Biden, leading Obama’s third term, is back to strengthening the USSR. Many of America’s sons died even during USSR’s “Cold” War.
“Not Everything Is WW II”
Well, correct, but, if looking at negoiating with the Iranian Aholetollahs we ARE talking about WW III.
Yes.
After reading the article and thread, I have to say I disagree with you about Ukraine.
I am in the Tucker Carlson camp that out border is WAY more important than Ukraine’s.
We are not defending our own country.
Oh, I agree that our own borders are more important. And Tucker is listed as one of the paleocons. I’m not asking if you agree with me on Ukraine, I’m asking if you consider yourself a paleocon.
As far as I’m concerned on Ukraine, Europe and Biden are going to go the idiotic route of appeasement, so they might as well go the route of appeasement that adds one of the oppressed countries to our list of allies with a piece of paper to wave around and claim “peace in our time” rather than the route of appeasement that lets the bully get away with it and could lead to tens of millions of deaths. This makes for an aggressive paleocon stance of neutrality issued from a position of strength rather than weakness.
Oh, I read this post after your other one, I gather out of order.
We would have been taking on Russia 2 years earlier than we were attacked, pushing Japan out of mainland Asia and Germany after Russia fell. We would have been in the war against Germany before they even attacked France and England.
For two years before our entry into WW2 Russia was an ally of Germany.
You need to study WW2 history.
You need to simply READ. I posted exactly that upthread.
If we had invaded against the Germano-Russia alliance 2 years earlier, we could have had an unfallen France and an undamaged Britain on our side.
But since you are so ignorant, it seems obvious that whatever you say which I disagree with will be obviously dismissed. What kind of approach is this towards discussion of historical lessons? The dipwad approach?
Go fc**k yourself and learn some real WW2 history.
You don’t like insults? Then why start OUT with insults, and especially when it’s instantly provable that you didn’t even read what I wrote?
Go and fail-to-read someone else’s posts, and the horse you rode in on.
Insults? I couldn’t think of a worse insult than just being you.
You’re just here to trade insults rather than learn from history.
“I am sick when I do look on thee “ ~Shakespeare
A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act 2, Scene 1)
Ever notice that in picture of Neville Chamberlin waving that “Peace in our time” agreement, that NONE in the crowd are smiling?
Back to the truckers’ strike in Canada (and WWII reflections):
“More like 1933. This is similar to the Enabling Act which Hitler used to secure his power and nullify the Reichstag”
If we had invaded the Russo-German alliance? 2 years earlier than Pearl Harbor? Is that what you’re saying?
What an absolutely idiotic thing to say. In 139 America’s military could barely defend the country let alone conduct operations outside our borders. And why would we have attacked two nations were were not at war with? Good God what an absurd proposition.
We weren’t at war with any country on December 6th, 1941, either. 2 years later. We coulda had a 2 year head start fighting tyranny in Europe, deterring the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, gaining territory in Siberia. It is no more preposterous than what actually happened.
Although I suggest it was naïvete that we could just be the “Arsenal of Democracy”, without getting into the fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.