Posted on 04/04/2015 7:14:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
The great pretense, the false suspense, the grand charade, the whole production number is about over. After months, after years of pretending that negotiations to keep Tehran's mullahs from getting their own nuclear weapon, the cover has been lifted and -- Ta-da! -- the grand finale begins with an all too familiar chorus: Peace in Our Time!
Uncork the champaign, serve the caviar and get ready to applaud what should be a real hit. Call it "Munich: The Sequel."
Back in 1938, the original production got a big reception from the waiting world, too, maybe bigger, because the audience could take it seriously back then. Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who directed the show, may have been naive, just putty in the Fuehrer's hands. For he had finally agreed to sell out his Czechoslovak allies in exchange for what was going to be peace everlasting. But lest we forget, no one doubted the Englishman's sincerity, or that of the crowds that greeted him when he proudly waved a worthless piece of paper in the air that was supposed to be a solemn agreement.
Yes, here and there a few observers understood it was all a swindle. Like a lonely member of Parliament named Winston Churchill, and he was charitable, understanding that Mr. Chamberlain and his country were the victims of a great swindle, not its perpetrators. The prime minister had negotiated in good faith, but his sincerity would be rewarded with treachery. And so it was.
Those who negotiated the Munich Agreement in 1938 could not have known how tragically it would turn out. Those who so proudly announced the deal consummated in Lausanne just a couple of days ago had Munich to learn from -- but didn't. Instead, they plunged ahead, forsaking this president's repeated promises to stand fast against the mullahs' developing their own nuclear weapon. To cite just some of this president's oh-so-solemn assurances:
"I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region. It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario." --Barack Obama, June 5, 2008 in Cairo.
"We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table." --Barack Obama, June 5, 2008.
"Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening." --Barack Obama, November 7, 2008.
"There should be no doubt --the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." --Barack Obama, July 1, 2010.
"Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal." --Barack Obama, January 24, 2012.
And on and on, year after year, promise after promise. Today it should be clear just how worthless such promises were. But perhaps I'm mistaken. (It's been known to happen.) And perhaps all the paper precautions announced this week along with the deal may yet suffice to keep Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Wouldn't that be nice? Not only nice -- it would be miraculous. But today this president's rosy-hued promises sound like little more than cynical ploys.
Does anyone who's followed this process really believe that such assurances are worth any more than Herr Hitler's when he got his agreement at Munich? Maybe, just maybe, they are. And maybe pigs will develop wings.
As the West is played for a fool again, a glib equation has been made between Neville Chamberlain in 1938 and Barack Obama in 2015, but that comparison doesn't hold up on closer inspection.
Neville Chamberlain was sincere.
----
Not since our last messianic president, Woodrow Wilson, has the country had a leader who believed he could conduct American diplomacy so unilaterally -- without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate no matter what the Constitution says. The result in Wilson's case was tragedy. His great dream of a League of Nations insuring the peace of the world was doomed without American participation when the Senate failed to approve the Treaty of Versailles he had engineered. Not that the League could have survived anyway as the aggressors of the world -- German Nazis, Italian fascisti, Japanese imperialists -- proved more than a match for its naivete.
The outlook for Barack Obama's unilateral diplomacy appears just as bleak. He and his legal eagles may succeed in following the letter of the Constitution by dubbing this deal with Tehran's mullahs and the usual European collaborators an executive agreement instead a treaty, but not its spirit. The rest of his "strategy," which amounts to appeasing Iran, is just as crafty and likely to prove just as futile. Or maybe you're one of those who believe that it's a great victory getting Tehran to delay its bomb by a matter of months -- or maybe just days -- rather than dismantling it altogether. Some of us find that idea laughable.
Israel's irrepressible prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose interest in this deal is not just a matter of constitutional niceties but his country's very survival, may have said it best: "Such a deal would not block Iran's path to the bomb. It would pave it."
Peace in our time ... but no mention of how awfully short our time will be.
Of course, there is no comparison with dear Neville. He was not Kenyan, nor was he ever in Viet Nam.
Obama’s entire presidency has been based on suspension of disbelief.
His and his moronic followers from the pseudointellectual class right down to the “Free Sh** Army”. The ones with other priorities.
You know we have to thank the peanut farmer from GA, for the whole problem we have with Iran and the mooslims. He started it all
LOL, Obama making Mr. Chamberlain look like a Super Genius
The fact is that Britain’s position was mostly irrelevant with regards to Czechoslovakia in 1938 and this is consistent with Britain’s position in Europe in the preceding 3 centuries. Britain had the world’s greatest navy which gave it status as a world power, but it’s army was always historically small, and it’s influence on the continent was realatively weak as one among many. During the Napoleonic wars and other European wars, Britain projected power on the continent via diplomacy, money and coalitions.
At the eve of WW2, Britain had a small expeditionary land force and a small Air Force. An Anglo French land force would have had little chance of driving through Germany and rescuing the Czechs. For Britain, this would have been an expensive proposition and would have diverted funds from growing its nascent Air Force. Of course, a capable Air Force was needed for the Battle of Britain 2 years later as it turned out.
The only real power on the continent capable of checking Nazi aggression in Central Europe was Stalin and Soviet Russia. Of course, Stalin had nothing to do with Munich.
0bama is a much different political animal than Neville Chamberlain. Unlike Chamberlin, 0bama’s position does give him the power to curb Iran. 0bama could simply continue the sanctions and make it difficult for Iran to accumulate the resources needed for nuclear bomb making and delivery systems.
Unlike Chamberlain, 0bama is intentionally and deliberately destroying the US economy and its military strength. The best historical parallel would be V. Lenin’s actions during in 1918, when, in order to consolidate power, he ceded about 1/3 of Russia (most of Ukraine, Belorussia) to the Germans in order to end the war. Lenin managed to weaken the nation economically via communism and militarily vs Germany so he could conquer his domestic enemies in the ensuing civil war.
No, 0bama is not a Chamberlain, he is a Lenin.
It is Peace for our Time.
“...no mention of how awfully short our time will be.”
Zero is a self professed Constitutional scholar.uh huh.
As the smartest man in the room, probably thinks he is a student of history too.
This is what happens when the JV of Ametican leadership “negotiates” with committed “Death to America” hard liners. Of course, the Ayatolla reiterated djring the nuclear surrender “Death to America” for internal consumption.
We will have less time for peace in our time than the hapless British did.
That was very instructive. Thanks.
Find the Chamberlain recording and listen to it and to the sultan’s words and notice the resemblance of tone and substance. The main difference is something you can’t hear; Chamberlain thought he was doing good for his country.
If you have the link can you post it?
Bismarck, on being asked what he would do if the British Army invaded Germany, "Have them arrested!" At the start of the World War I, the British Army was seven divisions, but they a more combat experience fighting colonial wars than all the other armies or Europe combined, and were the toughest seven divisions in Europe, all the other Armies were comparatively green.
This is like Chamberlain making an agreement with Germany as Germany is invading Poland, except it is a lot worse than that.
Thanks, I appreciated it. I usually am very good with searches, this time however I had no idea for what title to search
As Winston Churchill remarked “When given a choice between
war and dishonor, you have chosen dishonor and you will get war”
Chamberlain was naive. 0vomit is evil.
Chamberlain was an Englishman. 0vomit is not an American.
Neville Chamberlain was sincere.
YES, I agree. Chamberlain effed up but he doesn't deserve to be insulted by comparing him to Baraq.
Happy Easter everyone.
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.