Home
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
About Us & RulesWhat Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
5 posters
Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3 
What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:52 pm
In the fall of ’38, the motion was submitted to approve the government’s policy “by which war was averted in the recent crisis and supports their efforts to secure a lasting peace.”
The policy was the carving up of Czechoslovakia and the war being averted was World War II. Of that, Winston Churchill said, “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.”
Echoing that old Munich motion, the pro-Iran left is calling the nuclear deal that lets Iran keep its nukes and its targets their Geiger counters, Obama’s “achievement”. Any Democrat who challenges it is accused of obstructing the only foreign affairs achievement Obama can claim.
“Cory Booker wants to torpedo a major Obama achievement,” the New Republic shrieked. On MSNBC, Chris Hayes accused sixteen Democratic senators who wanted tougher measures on Iran of seeking a war to sabotage “Obama’s greatest foreign policy achievement” out of “fear” of the Israeli lobby.
Hayes and MSNBC were only echoing another famous Democrat, Joseph P. Kennedy, who warned of opposition to Munich by “Jew media” making noises meant to “set a match to the fuse of the world.”
Samuel Hoare, the Home Secretary, of whom King George V said, “No more coals to Newcastle, no more Hoares to Paris”, warned against those who wanted a sterner tone to bring an end to Hitler’s program of conquest as today’s Hoares warn against those who want to bring an end to Iran’s nuclear program.
“If at the very time when we were attempting… to obtain a peaceful settlement, we had accepted the advice of those who said you must face Herr Hitler with a public ultimatum,” Hoare warned. “If we had made an ultimatum… Europe would to-day have been plunged into a world war.”
Today the Hoares warn that stiffening sanctions against Iran and demanding an end to its nuclear program will lead to war. For years, the Hoares of the Democratic Party insisted sanctions were the only way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Now the Hoares say sanctions will alienate Iran and lead to war.
Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the alternative to the nuclear deal would be war. Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, warned that the failure of the deal will force Obama to, “choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to continue.”
Since the deal allows Iran’s nuclear program to continue, it’s a buffet of three choices, all three of which lead to conflict of some kind. The only variations are in the date and in the capabilities of the enemy.
That was the problem with Munich.
Hitler had already been making plans for a war with Britain and France that would commence three or four years after finishing off Czechoslovakia. The only thing that the Munich Agreement accomplished was to speed up Hitler’s timetable from three years to one by letting him finish his business with the Czechs earlier than he had planned.
Winston Churchill spoke. “I will… begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing… we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat.”
Lady Astor, whose Nazi sympathies were infamous, interrupted him with a cry of “Nonsense”. The Member for Berlin had written to Joseph P. Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than “give a rough time” to “the killers of Christ” before she would launch “Armageddon to save them.”
“The wheel of history swings round,” she wrote. “Who are we to stand in the way of the future?”
Churchill, like William F. Buckley, believed however in standing athwart the history of totalitarians, their Reichs, their People’s Republics and their Caliphates and yelling stop.
“£1 was demanded at the pistol’s point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol’s point,” Churchill retorted. “Finally, the dictator consented to take £1 17s. 6d. and the rest in promises of good will for the future.”
That is the sum of all negotiations with totalitarians, whether it is with Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or Islamist Iran.
“Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Obama said in 2012. Now there isn’t even a policy of containment.
Obama’s foreign policy achievement consists of letting Iran do nearly everything nuclear it wants in the hopes that it won’t go all the way. Containment has given way to appeasement. Iran gets nine tenths of its nuclear ambitions at gunpoint in the deal and will take the rest when it pleases at nukepoint.
“We have been reduced in those five years from a position of security so overwhelming and so unchallengeable that we never cared to think about it,” Churchill said, “reduced in five years from a position safe and unchallenged to where we stand now.”
In five years of Obama, the United States has also been reduced, its security stripped away and sold to win the approval of its enemies. It’s locked into the same policy of offering worthless security guarantees to its allies and then selling those allies down the river to prevent them from calling on those guarantees and exposing their worthlessness.
That was the Chamberlain policy that Churchill was denouncing. That is the Obama policy with his chalkboard of worthless red lines whose bluffing powers he is determined to protect.
“Having secured resources which will greatly diminish, if not entirely remove, the deterrent of a naval blockade, the rulers of Nazi Germany will have a free choice open to them in what direction they will turn their eyes,” Churchill said.
Similarly the nuclear deal cuts off most options for America and its allies and endows Iran with a great many options. And once it does have nuclear weapons, its options will be nearly unlimited.
Chamberlain’s rejoinder to Churchill reduced a practical problem to a philosophical one.
“It seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that… friendly relation… with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe,” he said, reciting true facts with the air of a conspiracy theory.
If that were indeed the case, Chamberlain argued, “There is no future hope for civilisation or for any of the things that make life worth living.”
Peace stopped being a rational program and became a philosophical one. A world where dictators could not be successfully appeased was not a world worth living in. The appeasement of Iran follows that same self-pitying mysticism.
For Churchill negotiations were a practical policy with a practical end, but supporters of appeasement had made negotiations into a moral absolute so that practical issues could be ignored and the dismantling of Czechoslovakia could be rationalized for the greater good of peace.
Any contradictory information was drowned in enthusiasm for peace with Hitler, which became indistinguishable from enthusiasm for Hitler.
If peace depended on Hitler and the entire hope of civilization rested on Hitler’s willingness to live in peace, the Chamberlains and their Hoares had to believe in Hitler to believe that life was worth living.
Their modern counterparts substitute the Supreme Leader of Iran for the Fuehrer, or leader, of Nazi Germany, but otherwise they make the same mistake.
To believe in world peace, they must believe in Hitler, in Stalin and in Khamenei and believe that regimes which ceaselessly talk of war, build weapons of war and torture and murder their own people on a whim somehow share their hopes for peace.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/what-churchill-would-make-of-obamas-iran-appeasement/
The policy was the carving up of Czechoslovakia and the war being averted was World War II. Of that, Winston Churchill said, “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.”
Echoing that old Munich motion, the pro-Iran left is calling the nuclear deal that lets Iran keep its nukes and its targets their Geiger counters, Obama’s “achievement”. Any Democrat who challenges it is accused of obstructing the only foreign affairs achievement Obama can claim.
“Cory Booker wants to torpedo a major Obama achievement,” the New Republic shrieked. On MSNBC, Chris Hayes accused sixteen Democratic senators who wanted tougher measures on Iran of seeking a war to sabotage “Obama’s greatest foreign policy achievement” out of “fear” of the Israeli lobby.
Hayes and MSNBC were only echoing another famous Democrat, Joseph P. Kennedy, who warned of opposition to Munich by “Jew media” making noises meant to “set a match to the fuse of the world.”
Samuel Hoare, the Home Secretary, of whom King George V said, “No more coals to Newcastle, no more Hoares to Paris”, warned against those who wanted a sterner tone to bring an end to Hitler’s program of conquest as today’s Hoares warn against those who want to bring an end to Iran’s nuclear program.
“If at the very time when we were attempting… to obtain a peaceful settlement, we had accepted the advice of those who said you must face Herr Hitler with a public ultimatum,” Hoare warned. “If we had made an ultimatum… Europe would to-day have been plunged into a world war.”
Today the Hoares warn that stiffening sanctions against Iran and demanding an end to its nuclear program will lead to war. For years, the Hoares of the Democratic Party insisted sanctions were the only way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Now the Hoares say sanctions will alienate Iran and lead to war.
Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the alternative to the nuclear deal would be war. Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, warned that the failure of the deal will force Obama to, “choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to continue.”
Since the deal allows Iran’s nuclear program to continue, it’s a buffet of three choices, all three of which lead to conflict of some kind. The only variations are in the date and in the capabilities of the enemy.
That was the problem with Munich.
Hitler had already been making plans for a war with Britain and France that would commence three or four years after finishing off Czechoslovakia. The only thing that the Munich Agreement accomplished was to speed up Hitler’s timetable from three years to one by letting him finish his business with the Czechs earlier than he had planned.
Winston Churchill spoke. “I will… begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing… we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat.”
Lady Astor, whose Nazi sympathies were infamous, interrupted him with a cry of “Nonsense”. The Member for Berlin had written to Joseph P. Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than “give a rough time” to “the killers of Christ” before she would launch “Armageddon to save them.”
“The wheel of history swings round,” she wrote. “Who are we to stand in the way of the future?”
Churchill, like William F. Buckley, believed however in standing athwart the history of totalitarians, their Reichs, their People’s Republics and their Caliphates and yelling stop.
“£1 was demanded at the pistol’s point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol’s point,” Churchill retorted. “Finally, the dictator consented to take £1 17s. 6d. and the rest in promises of good will for the future.”
That is the sum of all negotiations with totalitarians, whether it is with Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or Islamist Iran.
“Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Obama said in 2012. Now there isn’t even a policy of containment.
Obama’s foreign policy achievement consists of letting Iran do nearly everything nuclear it wants in the hopes that it won’t go all the way. Containment has given way to appeasement. Iran gets nine tenths of its nuclear ambitions at gunpoint in the deal and will take the rest when it pleases at nukepoint.
“We have been reduced in those five years from a position of security so overwhelming and so unchallengeable that we never cared to think about it,” Churchill said, “reduced in five years from a position safe and unchallenged to where we stand now.”
In five years of Obama, the United States has also been reduced, its security stripped away and sold to win the approval of its enemies. It’s locked into the same policy of offering worthless security guarantees to its allies and then selling those allies down the river to prevent them from calling on those guarantees and exposing their worthlessness.
That was the Chamberlain policy that Churchill was denouncing. That is the Obama policy with his chalkboard of worthless red lines whose bluffing powers he is determined to protect.
“Having secured resources which will greatly diminish, if not entirely remove, the deterrent of a naval blockade, the rulers of Nazi Germany will have a free choice open to them in what direction they will turn their eyes,” Churchill said.
Similarly the nuclear deal cuts off most options for America and its allies and endows Iran with a great many options. And once it does have nuclear weapons, its options will be nearly unlimited.
Chamberlain’s rejoinder to Churchill reduced a practical problem to a philosophical one.
“It seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that… friendly relation… with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe,” he said, reciting true facts with the air of a conspiracy theory.
If that were indeed the case, Chamberlain argued, “There is no future hope for civilisation or for any of the things that make life worth living.”
Peace stopped being a rational program and became a philosophical one. A world where dictators could not be successfully appeased was not a world worth living in. The appeasement of Iran follows that same self-pitying mysticism.
For Churchill negotiations were a practical policy with a practical end, but supporters of appeasement had made negotiations into a moral absolute so that practical issues could be ignored and the dismantling of Czechoslovakia could be rationalized for the greater good of peace.
Any contradictory information was drowned in enthusiasm for peace with Hitler, which became indistinguishable from enthusiasm for Hitler.
If peace depended on Hitler and the entire hope of civilization rested on Hitler’s willingness to live in peace, the Chamberlains and their Hoares had to believe in Hitler to believe that life was worth living.
Their modern counterparts substitute the Supreme Leader of Iran for the Fuehrer, or leader, of Nazi Germany, but otherwise they make the same mistake.
To believe in world peace, they must believe in Hitler, in Stalin and in Khamenei and believe that regimes which ceaselessly talk of war, build weapons of war and torture and murder their own people on a whim somehow share their hopes for peace.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/what-churchill-would-make-of-obamas-iran-appeasement/
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:59 pm
You do know Churchills dead ......therefore what he may or may not think is nothing more that political fantasy
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:04 pm
a poster that's names himself after a character out of Hollywood fantasy calling an article comparing the attitude of Churchill and Obama in relation to world threats nothing more than political fantasy
irony much??
irony much??
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:22 pm
Interesting, who declared war on Germany.
Neville Chamberlain, not Churchill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
Neville Chamberlain, not Churchill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:24 pm
who paved the way to war through his policy of appeasement??
chamberlain
who is currently paving the way to war with his policy of appeasement???
Obama
chamberlain
who is currently paving the way to war with his policy of appeasement???
Obama
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:33 pm
That really shows you know nothing of history, I suggest you read the link.
Churchill also made gaffs by the way and some of his statements are quite shocking.
He was still a great leader
Churchill also made gaffs by the way and some of his statements are quite shocking.
He was still a great leader
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:42 pm
Yes but i know its a fantasy character its a username (do pointless observations much )what does your name suggest about you ?smelly_bandit wrote:a poster that's names himself after a character out of Hollywood fantasy calling an article comparing the attitude of Churchill and Obama in relation to world threats nothing more than political fantasy
irony much??
Smelly
Having a strong or unpleasant smell.
Bandit
A robber or outlaw belonging to a gang and typically operating in an isolated or lawless area.
Churchill isn`t a fantasy character, so any "what Churchill would have thought "is pure speculation as he is dead
But still the political script writers can't help them self
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:43 pm
chamberlain was most well known for his policy of appeasement and his appeasement of the Nazi regime led teh world to war
you can try paint him as some hero if you like, the man was a coward just like obama
but whereas chamberlain only failed to stop the Nazis rise, Obama is not only refusing to stop irans rise to power he has given them the thumbs up to develop nukes for when they get there
it doesn't seem to me that you fully comprehend the type of world we would live in with a nuclear armed regime run by religious fanatics who have no problems killing themselves in the course of killing their perceived enemies
i know that you live in a state of constant delusion but surely even you cannot think that after all irans deception over their nuclear program that they will actually uphold their end of the deal??
that's a denial too far even for you
you can try paint him as some hero if you like, the man was a coward just like obama
but whereas chamberlain only failed to stop the Nazis rise, Obama is not only refusing to stop irans rise to power he has given them the thumbs up to develop nukes for when they get there
it doesn't seem to me that you fully comprehend the type of world we would live in with a nuclear armed regime run by religious fanatics who have no problems killing themselves in the course of killing their perceived enemies
i know that you live in a state of constant delusion but surely even you cannot think that after all irans deception over their nuclear program that they will actually uphold their end of the deal??
that's a denial too far even for you
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:46 pm
I never said he was a hero just you have not the first clue what you are talking about:
On 15 March, Germany invaded the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, including Prague. Though Chamberlain's initial parliamentary response was, according to biographer Nick Smart, "feeble", within 48 hours he had spoken more forcefully against the German aggression.[147] In the 17 March speech given at Birmingham, Chamberlain warned that "no greater mistake could be made than to suppose that because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing the nation has so lost its fibre that it will not take part to the utmost of its power in resisting such a challenge if it were ever made".[148] The Prime Minister questioned whether the invasion of Czechoslovakia was "the end of an old adventure, or the beginning of a new" and whether it was "a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force".[149] The Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald stated, "whereas the Prime Minister was once a strong advocate of peace, he has now definitely swung around to the war point of view".[150] This speech was met with widespread approval in Britain and recruitment for the armed services increased considerably.[151]
Chamberlain sought to build an interlocking series of defence pacts among the remaining European countries as a means of deterring Hitler from war.[152] He sought an agreement among Britain, France, the USSR and Poland whereby the first three would go to the assistance of Poland if her independence were threatened, but Polish mistrust of the Soviet Union caused those negotiations to fail.[152] Instead, on 31 March, Chamberlain informed an approving House of Commons of British and French guarantees that they would lend Poland all possible aid in the event of any action which threatened Polish independence.[153] In the ensuing debate Eden stated that the nation was now united behind the government.[154] Even Churchill and Lloyd George praised Chamberlain's government for issuing the guarantee to Poland.[155]
The Prime Minister took other steps to deter Hitler from aggression. He doubled the size of the Territorial Army, created a Ministry of Supply to expedite the provision of equipment to the armed forces, and instituted peacetime conscription.[156] The Italian invasion of Albania on 7 April led to guarantees being given to Greece and Romania.[157]
Chamberlain was reluctant to seek military alliance with the Soviet Union, distrusting Joseph Stalin ideologically and feeling that there was little to gain given the massive purges that recently had taken place in the Red Army. However, much of his Cabinet favoured such an alliance, and when Poland withdrew her objection to Anglo–Soviet alliance Chamberlain had little choice but to proceed. The talks with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, to which Britain sent only a low-level delegation, dragged on over several months and eventually foundered on 14 August when Poland and Romania refused to allow Soviet troops to be stationed on their territories. A week after the failure of these talks the Soviet Union and Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which committed the countries to non-aggression toward each other.[158] A secret agreement divided up Poland in the event of war.[159] Chamberlain had disregarded rumours of a Soviet-German "rapprochement", and was dismissive of the publicly announced pact stating that it in no way affected British obligations toward Poland.[160] Nevertheless, on 23 August Chamberlain had Henderson deliver a letter to Hitler telling him that Britain was fully prepared to live up to its obligations to Poland
On 15 March, Germany invaded the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, including Prague. Though Chamberlain's initial parliamentary response was, according to biographer Nick Smart, "feeble", within 48 hours he had spoken more forcefully against the German aggression.[147] In the 17 March speech given at Birmingham, Chamberlain warned that "no greater mistake could be made than to suppose that because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing the nation has so lost its fibre that it will not take part to the utmost of its power in resisting such a challenge if it were ever made".[148] The Prime Minister questioned whether the invasion of Czechoslovakia was "the end of an old adventure, or the beginning of a new" and whether it was "a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force".[149] The Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald stated, "whereas the Prime Minister was once a strong advocate of peace, he has now definitely swung around to the war point of view".[150] This speech was met with widespread approval in Britain and recruitment for the armed services increased considerably.[151]
Chamberlain sought to build an interlocking series of defence pacts among the remaining European countries as a means of deterring Hitler from war.[152] He sought an agreement among Britain, France, the USSR and Poland whereby the first three would go to the assistance of Poland if her independence were threatened, but Polish mistrust of the Soviet Union caused those negotiations to fail.[152] Instead, on 31 March, Chamberlain informed an approving House of Commons of British and French guarantees that they would lend Poland all possible aid in the event of any action which threatened Polish independence.[153] In the ensuing debate Eden stated that the nation was now united behind the government.[154] Even Churchill and Lloyd George praised Chamberlain's government for issuing the guarantee to Poland.[155]
The Prime Minister took other steps to deter Hitler from aggression. He doubled the size of the Territorial Army, created a Ministry of Supply to expedite the provision of equipment to the armed forces, and instituted peacetime conscription.[156] The Italian invasion of Albania on 7 April led to guarantees being given to Greece and Romania.[157]
Chamberlain was reluctant to seek military alliance with the Soviet Union, distrusting Joseph Stalin ideologically and feeling that there was little to gain given the massive purges that recently had taken place in the Red Army. However, much of his Cabinet favoured such an alliance, and when Poland withdrew her objection to Anglo–Soviet alliance Chamberlain had little choice but to proceed. The talks with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, to which Britain sent only a low-level delegation, dragged on over several months and eventually foundered on 14 August when Poland and Romania refused to allow Soviet troops to be stationed on their territories. A week after the failure of these talks the Soviet Union and Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which committed the countries to non-aggression toward each other.[158] A secret agreement divided up Poland in the event of war.[159] Chamberlain had disregarded rumours of a Soviet-German "rapprochement", and was dismissive of the publicly announced pact stating that it in no way affected British obligations toward Poland.[160] Nevertheless, on 23 August Chamberlain had Henderson deliver a letter to Hitler telling him that Britain was fully prepared to live up to its obligations to Poland
Last edited by PhilDidge on Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:46 pm
Korben Dallas wrote:Yes but i know its a fantasy character its a username (do pointless observations much )what does your name suggest about you ?smelly_bandit wrote:a poster that's names himself after a character out of Hollywood fantasy calling an article comparing the attitude of Churchill and Obama in relation to world threats nothing more than political fantasy
irony much??
Smelly
Having a strong or unpleasant smell.
Bandit
A robber or outlaw belonging to a gang and typically operating in an isolated or lawless area.
Churchill isn`t a fantasy character, so any "what Churchill would have thought "is pure speculation as he is dead
But still the political script writers can't help them self
touchy
Hitler is also dead but im sure there isn't anyone around who considers his hatred of the Jews to be political fantasy or hearsay
you don't seem to understand what the effect the article is achieving, which is rather worrying considering how straight forward it is
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:52 pm
PhilDidge wrote:I never said he was a hero just you have not the first clue what you are talking about:
On 15 March, Germany invaded the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, including Prague. Though Chamberlain's initial parliamentary response was, according to biographer Nick Smart, "feeble", within 48 hours he had spoken more forcefully against the German aggression.[147] In the 17 March speech given at Birmingham, Chamberlain warned that "no greater mistake could be made than to suppose that because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing the nation has so lost its fibre that it will not take part to the utmost of its power in resisting such a challenge if it were ever made".[148] The Prime Minister questioned whether the invasion of Czechoslovakia was "the end of an old adventure, or the beginning of a new" and whether it was "a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force".[149] The Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald stated, "whereas the Prime Minister was once a strong advocate of peace, he has now definitely swung around to the war point of view".[150] This speech was met with widespread approval in Britain and recruitment for the armed services increased considerably.[151]
Chamberlain sought to build an interlocking series of defence pacts among the remaining European countries as a means of deterring Hitler from war.[152] He sought an agreement among Britain, France, the USSR and Poland whereby the first three would go to the assistance of Poland if her independence were threatened, but Polish mistrust of the Soviet Union caused those negotiations to fail.[152] Instead, on 31 March, Chamberlain informed an approving House of Commons of British and French guarantees that they would lend Poland all possible aid in the event of any action which threatened Polish independence.[153] In the ensuing debate Eden stated that the nation was now united behind the government.[154] Even Churchill and Lloyd George praised Chamberlain's government for issuing the guarantee to Poland.[155]
The Prime Minister took other steps to deter Hitler from aggression. He doubled the size of the Territorial Army, created a Ministry of Supply to expedite the provision of equipment to the armed forces, and instituted peacetime conscription.[156] The Italian invasion of Albania on 7 April led to guarantees being given to Greece and Romania.[157]
Chamberlain was reluctant to seek military alliance with the Soviet Union, distrusting Joseph Stalin ideologically and feeling that there was little to gain given the massive purges that recently had taken place in the Red Army. However, much of his Cabinet favoured such an alliance, and when Poland withdrew her objection to Anglo–Soviet alliance Chamberlain had little choice but to proceed. The talks with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, to which Britain sent only a low-level delegation, dragged on over several months and eventually foundered on 14 August when Poland and Romania refused to allow Soviet troops to be stationed on their territories. A week after the failure of these talks the Soviet Union and Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which committed the countries to non-aggression toward each other.[158] A secret agreement divided up Poland in the event of war.[159] Chamberlain had disregarded rumours of a Soviet-German "rapprochement", and was dismissive of the publicly announced pact stating that it in no way affected British obligations toward Poland.[160] Nevertheless, on 23 August Chamberlain had Henderson deliver a letter to Hitler telling him that Britain was fully prepared to live up to its obligations to Poland
and??
he is still almost unilaterally regarded as a coward and an appeaser that refused to stand up to Hitler when he had the chance
it was Churchill not chamberlain who won WWII
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:56 pm
Eh!! What Churchill would think of Obama v Iran ...... Speculative at bestsmelly_bandit wrote:Korben Dallas wrote:
Yes but i know its a fantasy character its a username (do pointless observations much )what does your name suggest about you ?
Smelly
Having a strong or unpleasant smell.
Bandit
A robber or outlaw belonging to a gang and typically operating in an isolated or lawless area.
Churchill isn`t a fantasy character, so any "what Churchill would have thought "is pure speculation as he is dead
But still the political script writers can't help them self
touchy
Hitler is also dead but im sure there isn't anyone around who considers his hatred of the Jews to be political fantasy or hearsay
you don't seem to understand what the effect the article is achieving, which is rather worrying considering how straightforward it is
And you're comparing it to Hitler and the jews something that that's a historical fact
Need to do better than that
Churchill Regan and thatcher
i do love the way they are invoked as some kind of High standard
Pretty lame appeal to nationalism imo
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:23 pm
The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting held between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, who signed a protocol That pledged the Big Three's recognition of Iran's independence.
Seems like the same as Obama is trying to do
In fact, Churchill did it first
Seems like the same as Obama is trying to do
In fact, Churchill did it first
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:24 pm
Korben Dallas wrote:Eh!! What Churchill would think of Obama v Iran ...... Speculative at bestsmelly_bandit wrote:
touchy
Hitler is also dead but im sure there isn't anyone around who considers his hatred of the Jews to be political fantasy or hearsay
you don't seem to understand what the effect the article is achieving, which is rather worrying considering how straightforward it is
And you're comparing it to Hitler and the jews something that that's a historical fact
Need to do better than that
Churchill Regan and thatcher
i do love the way they are invoked as some kind of High standard
Pretty lame appeal to nationalism imo
as i said you don't seem to understand what the article is doing
don't feel too bad it is a cleverly written piece.
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by nicko Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:27 pm
I have allways thought that you should never trust Iran,letting them have nuclear power is,in my opinion a dangerous game!
nicko- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 13368
Join date : 2013-12-07
Age : 83
Location : rainbow bridge
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:28 pm
Korben Dallas wrote:The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting held between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, who signed a protocol That pledged the Big Three's recognition of Iran's independence.
Seems like the same as Obama is trying to do
In fact, Churchill did it first
this is a joke isn't it?
please dear god tell me you're trying to make a joke and that you're not being serious??
say it aint so
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by nicko Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:29 pm
bye the way,Churchill never trusted Stalin,and he was right not to do so.
nicko- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 13368
Join date : 2013-12-07
Age : 83
Location : rainbow bridge
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:39 pm
PhilDidge wrote:Interesting, who declared war on Germany.
Neville Chamberlain, not Churchill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
In his broadcast to the nation, Mr Chamberlain spoke of his sadness that "the long struggle to win peace" had failed.
He continued: "I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different that I could have done and that would have been more successful."
Yesterday there was anger in the House of Commons over the Government's apparent delay in taking action against Germany.
Labour's deputy leader Arthur Greenwood had accused the Prime Minister of vacillating when "Britain and all that Britain stands for are in peril".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/3/newsid_3493000/3493279.stm
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:39 pm
Tehran Conference
Finally, the three leaders issued a “Declaration of the Three Powers Regarding Iran.” Within it, they thanked the Iranian Government for its assistance in the war against Germany and promised to provide it with economic assistance both during and after the war. Most importantly, the U.S., British, and Soviet Governments stated that they all shared a “desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Iran.”
Instead of which, the CIA overthrew Mosaddegh in a coup, installed the Shah and trained his terror troops in torture methods.
Finally, the three leaders issued a “Declaration of the Three Powers Regarding Iran.” Within it, they thanked the Iranian Government for its assistance in the war against Germany and promised to provide it with economic assistance both during and after the war. Most importantly, the U.S., British, and Soviet Governments stated that they all shared a “desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Iran.”
Instead of which, the CIA overthrew Mosaddegh in a coup, installed the Shah and trained his terror troops in torture methods.
Last edited by Sassy on Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:40 pm
i understand that it`s not unreasonable to have that concern, however, do we have the right to deny sovereign country's access to nuclear power because they "might" use it for other purposesnicko wrote:I have allways thought that you should never trust Iran,letting them have nuclear power is,in my opinion a dangerous game!
Given half the chance Israel would nuke a lot of countries and we actually gave them the bomb
And lets face it if they did build a nuke and use it that would be the end of iran for the next thousand years or so
And if you keep beating them eventually the worm will turn
Sanctions have worked it`s brought them to the table
it makes no sense to keep hitting them while they are sitting at the table
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:42 pm
Yes its truesmelly_bandit wrote:Korben Dallas wrote:The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting held between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, who signed a protocol That pledged the Big Three's recognition of Iran's independence.
Seems like the same as Obama is trying to do
In fact, Churchill did it first
this is a joke isn't it?
please dear god tell me you're trying to make a joke and that you're not being serious??
say it aint so
codename eureka I believe
history /facts
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:58 pm
Dear me lets show why Smelly has not the first clue about any history
Lets take the absurd notion if Churchill had been in power what difference it would have made it would have made in 1938?
None
If Britain had gone alone in declaring war when Churchill wanted to he would have been unable to do anything to prevent the annexation of Czechoslovakia. With no other nation declaring war for example what could have Churchill done to save Czechoslovakia?
Very little, at this point the forces in comparison was around 850,000 for the German Army and 220,000 for the British Army. With around half of the British Army being based around the world. In 1938 Germany had 1500 planes compared to less than half that for the British , the Czechs had about 1000 inferior planes. So shy of invading Germany by Sea, how could Britain get troops to Czechoslovakia? Only with France allowing them to would even then make little difference and as seen the reality of when both did go to war was that their military strategies were based on defensive measures from WW1, even though the French had a bigger army than Germany of which most of the forces were fighting in Poland. Not only that the British high command had no Blitzkrieg tactics and again their plans were defensive. In fact both French and British forces had the belief Poland would fall. Also who is to say if both had declared war a year earlier the pact with Russia would still have gone ahead.
That is the reality in 1938 Britain was no way geared up for war, even by 1941 after 2 years they were very much on the back foot. So what would have been the difference if Britain had gone to war, they did nothing to stop the invasion of Poland in 1939, was battered in France, left reeling with most of its equipment abandoned at Dunkirk and during the Battle of Britain was on its knee's even though heroic fighter pilots were taking the battle to the Luftwaffe, if it had not been for a change of tactics by bombing cities because of pride by the Germans after a daring raid on Berlin, the RAF would no doubt have been defeated. This change in tactic allowed the RAF to recoup its numbers, as by September they were losing more pilots and Planes than they could replace. Even after winning the battle of Britain still Britain faced more defeats again in Greece, showing even after two years of conflict they had not the means to take the fight to Germany at all and had to fight to save Colonial areas more. North Africa would have fallen also if Germany had of invaded both Gibraltar and Malta as it would have starved Britain of two vital Naval bases.
Not only that you have to take into account the feeling of many of the people who many were in living memory of the Great war of which many would have wanted to have avoided at all costs repeating itself, so what difference would have been made if Churchill had been charge?
Very little, one year extra to build arms.
And the piece de la resistance left to last, as during Churchill's last ministry in the early 1950s, he steadily plumped for a summit meeting with Stalin and then with Stalin's successors. Just as he was leaving office for the last time,Churchill, Britain's greatest war leader, seemed to have opted for geopolitical peace over ideological war.
So I guess it is back the drawing board again smelly for you
Lets take the absurd notion if Churchill had been in power what difference it would have made it would have made in 1938?
None
If Britain had gone alone in declaring war when Churchill wanted to he would have been unable to do anything to prevent the annexation of Czechoslovakia. With no other nation declaring war for example what could have Churchill done to save Czechoslovakia?
Very little, at this point the forces in comparison was around 850,000 for the German Army and 220,000 for the British Army. With around half of the British Army being based around the world. In 1938 Germany had 1500 planes compared to less than half that for the British , the Czechs had about 1000 inferior planes. So shy of invading Germany by Sea, how could Britain get troops to Czechoslovakia? Only with France allowing them to would even then make little difference and as seen the reality of when both did go to war was that their military strategies were based on defensive measures from WW1, even though the French had a bigger army than Germany of which most of the forces were fighting in Poland. Not only that the British high command had no Blitzkrieg tactics and again their plans were defensive. In fact both French and British forces had the belief Poland would fall. Also who is to say if both had declared war a year earlier the pact with Russia would still have gone ahead.
That is the reality in 1938 Britain was no way geared up for war, even by 1941 after 2 years they were very much on the back foot. So what would have been the difference if Britain had gone to war, they did nothing to stop the invasion of Poland in 1939, was battered in France, left reeling with most of its equipment abandoned at Dunkirk and during the Battle of Britain was on its knee's even though heroic fighter pilots were taking the battle to the Luftwaffe, if it had not been for a change of tactics by bombing cities because of pride by the Germans after a daring raid on Berlin, the RAF would no doubt have been defeated. This change in tactic allowed the RAF to recoup its numbers, as by September they were losing more pilots and Planes than they could replace. Even after winning the battle of Britain still Britain faced more defeats again in Greece, showing even after two years of conflict they had not the means to take the fight to Germany at all and had to fight to save Colonial areas more. North Africa would have fallen also if Germany had of invaded both Gibraltar and Malta as it would have starved Britain of two vital Naval bases.
Not only that you have to take into account the feeling of many of the people who many were in living memory of the Great war of which many would have wanted to have avoided at all costs repeating itself, so what difference would have been made if Churchill had been charge?
Very little, one year extra to build arms.
And the piece de la resistance left to last, as during Churchill's last ministry in the early 1950s, he steadily plumped for a summit meeting with Stalin and then with Stalin's successors. Just as he was leaving office for the last time,Churchill, Britain's greatest war leader, seemed to have opted for geopolitical peace over ideological war.
So I guess it is back the drawing board again smelly for you
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:36 pm
Korben Dallas wrote:Yes its truesmelly_bandit wrote:
this is a joke isn't it?
please dear god tell me you're trying to make a joke and that you're not being serious??
say it aint so
codename eureka I believe
history /facts
so when did Iran lose its independence??
when did this little historical fact of yours happen??
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:40 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:Korben Dallas wrote:
Yes its true
codename eureka I believe
history /facts
so when did Iran lose its independence??
when did this little historical fact of yours happen??
When the CIA brought about the coup that put the Shah in place, when they proceeded to train his terror troops in torture.
Tehran Conference
Finally, the three leaders issued a “Declaration of the Three Powers Regarding Iran.” Within it, they thanked the Iranian Government for its assistance in the war against Germany and promised to provide it with economic assistance both during and after the war. Most importantly, the U.S., British, and Soviet Governments stated that they all shared a “desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Iran.”
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:42 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:Korben Dallas wrote:
Yes its true
codename eureka I believe
history /facts
so when did Iran lose its independence??
when did this little historical fact of yours happen??
Why are you still clutching at straws, as seen Churchill also tried to appease when it suited him and he was an ardent hater of communism. Don;t get me wrong he was a great leader but also did try to appease as seen with the Soviet Union!
That is the facts, so your article by the Zionist David Horowitz like many others he has written as woeful to say the least in fact I remember you quoting him where he claimed that Jews had been around on the middle east lands for 4000 years, that one was hilarious
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:43 pm
well if your that interested hardly falls to me to do your research now does itsmelly_bandit wrote:Korben Dallas wrote:
Yes its true
codename eureka I believe
history /facts
so when did Iran lose its independence??
when did this little historical fact of yours happen??
But if you would like to employ me (with suitable recompense ) to teach you history please forward your details
Failing that try books and the internet very useful tools for self enlightenment
go on give it a try who know you might learn something
ok one little clue the rest is up to you :::grouch::
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/tehran-conf
Last edited by Korben Dallas on Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:44 pm
Korben Dallas wrote:i understand that it`s not unreasonable to have that concern, however, do we have the right to deny sovereign country's access to nuclear power because they "might" use it for other purposesnicko wrote:I have allways thought that you should never trust Iran,letting them have nuclear power is,in my opinion a dangerous game!
Given half the chance Israel would nuke a lot of countries and we actually gave them the bomb
And lets face it if they did build a nuke and use it that would be the end of iran for the next thousand years or so
And if you keep beating them eventually the worm will turn
Sanctions have worked it`s brought them to the table
it makes no sense to keep hitting them while they are sitting at the table
given half the chance??
Israel has had several war genocidal wars waged against them and several dozen chances to use the bomb and haven't done so
so i guess that must mean you are completely ignorant of history
during the war of independence they were attack by no less than 5 Arab country on five different fronts at the same time
during the six day war they fought against Jordan Syria and Egypt
during yom kippur war they were almost defeated
at no stage have they ever come close to using the bomb
can you lie any more??
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:45 pm
Korben Dallas wrote:well if your that interested hardly falls to me to do your research now does itsmelly_bandit wrote:
so when did Iran lose its independence??
when did this little historical fact of yours happen??
But if you would like to employ me (with suitable recompense ) to teach you history please forward your details
Failing that try books and the internet very useful tools for self enlightenment
go on give it a try who know you might learn something
so basically your talking shite about iran losing their Independence
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:47 pm
PhilDidge wrote:smelly_bandit wrote:
so when did Iran lose its independence??
when did this little historical fact of yours happen??
Why are you still clutching at straws, as seen Churchill also tried to appease when it suited him and he was an ardent hater of communism. Don;t get me wrong he was a great leader but also did try to appease as seen with the Soviet Union!
That is the facts, so your article by the Zionist David Horowitz like many others he has written as woeful to say the least in fact I remember you quoting him where he claimed that Jews had been around on the middle east lands for 4000 years, that one was hilarious
I see smelly is dodging my posts because they exposed his argument as moot!
:D
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:47 pm
PhilDidge wrote:smelly_bandit wrote:
so when did Iran lose its independence??
when did this little historical fact of yours happen??
Why are you still clutching at straws, as seen Churchill also tried to appease when it suited him and he was an ardent hater of communism. Don;t get me wrong he was a great leader but also did try to appease as seen with the Soviet Union!
That is the facts, so your article by the Zionist David Horowitz like many others he has written as woeful to say the least in fact I remember you quoting him where he claimed that Jews had been around on the middle east lands for 4000 years, that one was hilarious
do you know what your talking about because i don't
is this one of your "arab Muslims are white supremacist islamophobes who hate Islam and other Muslims" delusion??
oh sorry didge should i not have told people about that???
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:47 pm
PhilDidge wrote:Dear me lets show why Smelly has not the first clue about any history
Lets take the absurd notion if Churchill had been in power what difference it would have made it would have made in 1938?
None
If Britain had gone alone in declaring war when Churchill wanted to he would have been unable to do anything to prevent the annexation of Czechoslovakia. With no other nation declaring war for example what could have Churchill done to save Czechoslovakia?
Very little, at this point the forces in comparison was around 850,000 for the German Army and 220,000 for the British Army. With around half of the British Army being based around the world. In 1938 Germany had 1500 planes compared to less than half that for the British , the Czechs had about 1000 inferior planes. So shy of invading Germany by Sea, how could Britain get troops to Czechoslovakia? Only with France allowing them to would even then make little difference and as seen the reality of when both did go to war was that their military strategies were based on defensive measures from WW1, even though the French had a bigger army than Germany of which most of the forces were fighting in Poland. Not only that the British high command had no Blitzkrieg tactics and again their plans were defensive. In fact both French and British forces had the belief Poland would fall. Also who is to say if both had declared war a year earlier the pact with Russia would still have gone ahead.
That is the reality in 1938 Britain was no way geared up for war, even by 1941 after 2 years they were very much on the back foot. So what would have been the difference if Britain had gone to war, they did nothing to stop the invasion of Poland in 1939, was battered in France, left reeling with most of its equipment abandoned at Dunkirk and during the Battle of Britain was on its knee's even though heroic fighter pilots were taking the battle to the Luftwaffe, if it had not been for a change of tactics by bombing cities because of pride by the Germans after a daring raid on Berlin, the RAF would no doubt have been defeated. This change in tactic allowed the RAF to recoup its numbers, as by September they were losing more pilots and Planes than they could replace. Even after winning the battle of Britain still Britain faced more defeats again in Greece, showing even after two years of conflict they had not the means to take the fight to Germany at all and had to fight to save Colonial areas more. North Africa would have fallen also if Germany had of invaded both Gibraltar and Malta as it would have starved Britain of two vital Naval bases.
Not only that you have to take into account the feeling of many of the people who many were in living memory of the Great war of which many would have wanted to have avoided at all costs repeating itself, so what difference would have been made if Churchill had been charge?
Very little, one year extra to build arms.
And the piece de la resistance left to last, as during Churchill's last ministry in the early 1950s, he steadily plumped for a summit meeting with Stalin and then with Stalin's successors. Just as he was leaving office for the last time,Churchill, Britain's greatest war leader, seemed to have opted for geopolitical peace over ideological war.
So I guess it is back the drawing board again smelly for you
:/pwn://:
Guest- Guest
ALLAKAKA- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 779
Join date : 2013-12-09
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:48 pm
ALLAKAKA wrote:
Is that your favorite video allakaka?
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:49 pm
Er.... i haven't mentioned independence ?? ....you feeling ok hot sweaty needing a lie down or something ?smelly_bandit wrote:Korben Dallas wrote:
well if your that interested hardly falls to me to do your research now does it
But if you would like to employ me (with suitable recompense ) to teach you history please forward your details
Failing that try books and the internet very useful tools for self enlightenment
go on give it a try who know you might learn something
so basically your talking shite about iran losing their Independence
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:49 pm
PhilDidge wrote:Dear me lets show why Smelly has not the first clue about any history
Lets take the absurd notion if Churchill had been in power what difference it would have made it would have made in 1938?
None
If Britain had gone alone in declaring war when Churchill wanted to he would have been unable to do anything to prevent the annexation of Czechoslovakia. With no other nation declaring war for example what could have Churchill done to save Czechoslovakia?
Very little, at this point the forces in comparison was around 850,000 for the German Army and 220,000 for the British Army. With around half of the British Army being based around the world. In 1938 Germany had 1500 planes compared to less than half that for the British , the Czechs had about 1000 inferior planes. So shy of invading Germany by Sea, how could Britain get troops to Czechoslovakia? Only with France allowing them to would even then make little difference and as seen the reality of when both did go to war was that their military strategies were based on defensive measures from WW1, even though the French had a bigger army than Germany of which most of the forces were fighting in Poland. Not only that the British high command had no Blitzkrieg tactics and again their plans were defensive. In fact both French and British forces had the belief Poland would fall. Also who is to say if both had declared war a year earlier the pact with Russia would still have gone ahead.
That is the reality in 1938 Britain was no way geared up for war, even by 1941 after 2 years they were very much on the back foot. So what would have been the difference if Britain had gone to war, they did nothing to stop the invasion of Poland in 1939, was battered in France, left reeling with most of its equipment abandoned at Dunkirk and during the Battle of Britain was on its knee's even though heroic fighter pilots were taking the battle to the Luftwaffe, if it had not been for a change of tactics by bombing cities because of pride by the Germans after a daring raid on Berlin, the RAF would no doubt have been defeated. This change in tactic allowed the RAF to recoup its numbers, as by September they were losing more pilots and Planes than they could replace. Even after winning the battle of Britain still Britain faced more defeats again in Greece, showing even after two years of conflict they had not the means to take the fight to Germany at all and had to fight to save Colonial areas more. North Africa would have fallen also if Germany had of invaded both Gibraltar and Malta as it would have starved Britain of two vital Naval bases.
Not only that you have to take into account the feeling of many of the people who many were in living memory of the Great war of which many would have wanted to have avoided at all costs repeating itself, so what difference would have been made if Churchill had been charge?
Very little, one year extra to build arms.
And the piece de la resistance left to last, as during Churchill's last ministry in the early 1950s, he steadily plumped for a summit meeting with Stalin and then with Stalin's successors. Just as he was leaving office for the last time,Churchill, Britain's greatest war leader, seemed to have opted for geopolitical peace over ideological war.
So I guess it is back the drawing board again smelly for you
:/pwn://:
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:55 pm
what you don't seem to grasp is that chamberlain didn't appease because we were not ready he appeased because he was weak
you don't seem to grasp that chamberlain allowed Germany to take what they wanted, hilter made demands and chamberlain appeased him
the Munich agreement that he signed is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement towards German aggression
carry on trying to make him out as some kind of hero, history views him as a cowardly appeaser
and it fell to Churchill to clean up his mess
you don't seem to grasp that chamberlain allowed Germany to take what they wanted, hilter made demands and chamberlain appeased him
the Munich agreement that he signed is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement towards German aggression
carry on trying to make him out as some kind of hero, history views him as a cowardly appeaser
and it fell to Churchill to clean up his mess
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:57 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:what you don't seem to grasp is that chamberlain didn't appease because we were not ready he appeased because he was weak
you don't seem to grasp that chamberlain allowed Germany to take what they wanted, hilter made demands and chamberlain appeased him
the Munich agreement that he signed is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement towards German aggression
carry on trying to make him out as some kind of hero, history views him as a cowardly appeaser
and it fell to Churchill to clean up his mess
No what you Fail to Grasp smelly is that Churchill was an ardent hater of communism and yet in his last years in office, he sought to appease them, showing how far removed you are from understanding any history.
So your argument here as seen is very moot as Churchill himself appeased his enemies.
Also Churchill did little to stop Germany invading Poland, in fact do you want to see what they promised and then went back on?
Last edited by PhilDidge on Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:58 pm
Korben Dallas wrote:Er.... i haven't mentioned independence ?? ....you feeling ok hot sweaty needing a lie down or something ?smelly_bandit wrote:
so basically your talking shite about iran losing their Independence
you mention it right here
The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting held between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, who signed a protocol That pledged the Big Three's recognition of Iran's independence.
Seems like the same as Obama is trying to do
if as you say obama is trying to do the same, then it stands to reason that somewhere alone the way between then an now, Iran has lost its independence
you haven't got a clue what day it is do you??
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:00 pm
I think all can see smelly that you do not even know what year it is, so again, what you Fail to Grasp smelly is that Churchill was an ardent hater of communism and yet in his last years in office, he sought to appease them, showing how far removed you are from understanding any history.
So your argument here as seen is very moot as Churchill himself appeased his enemies.
Also Churchill did little to stop Germany invading Poland, in fact do you want to see what they promised and then went back on?
So your argument here as seen is very moot as Churchill himself appeased his enemies.
Also Churchill did little to stop Germany invading Poland, in fact do you want to see what they promised and then went back on?
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:00 pm
PhilDidge wrote:smelly_bandit wrote:what you don't seem to grasp is that chamberlain didn't appease because we were not ready he appeased because he was weak
you don't seem to grasp that chamberlain allowed Germany to take what they wanted, hilter made demands and chamberlain appeased him
the Munich agreement that he signed is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement towards German aggression
carry on trying to make him out as some kind of hero, history views him as a cowardly appeaser
and it fell to Churchill to clean up his mess
No what you Fail to Grasp smelly is that Churchill was an ardent hater of communism and yet in his last years in office, he sought to appease them, showing how far removed you are from understanding any history.
So your argument here as seen is very moot as Churchill himself appeased his enemies.
so what??
did Churchills appeasement result in millions of deaths??
chamberlains did
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:01 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:Korben Dallas wrote:
Er.... i haven't mentioned independence ?? ....you feeling ok hot sweaty needing a lie down or something ?
you mention it right here
The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting held between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, who signed a protocol That pledged the Big Three's recognition of Iran's independence.
Seems like the same as Obama is trying to do
if as you say obama is trying to do the same, then it stands to reason that somewhere alone the way between then an now, Iran has lost its independence
you haven't got a clue what day it is do you??
Yes, they lost it when the CIA otherthrew the legitimate government and put the Shah in, he was a puppet for them.
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:03 pm
PhilDidge wrote:I think all can see smelly that you do not even know what year it is, so again, what you Fail to Grasp smelly is that Churchill was an ardent hater of communism and yet in his last years in office, he sought to appease them, showing how far removed you are from understanding any history.
So your argument here as seen is very moot as Churchill himself appeased his enemies.
Also Churchill did little to stop Germany invading Poland, in fact do you want to see what they promised and then went back on?
this is really getting to you isn't it
ive broken you in record time
normally it takes ages for you to resort to the broken record tactic
didge why do you constantly threaten to show me things??
do i want to see this?? do i want to see that??
ten times out of ten the answers is "yes please" and ten times out of ten you never deliver
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:03 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:PhilDidge wrote:
No what you Fail to Grasp smelly is that Churchill was an ardent hater of communism and yet in his last years in office, he sought to appease them, showing how far removed you are from understanding any history.
So your argument here as seen is very moot as Churchill himself appeased his enemies.
so what??
did Churchills appeasement result in millions of deaths??
chamberlains did
Neither did Chamberlains, I suggest you read again and show me how on earth if Churchill had been in power what he would have been able to do to stop Hitler in 1938 on his own?
So here is my points again on this which you dodged:
Lets take the absurd notion if Churchill had been in power what difference it would have made it would have made in 1938?
None
If Britain had gone alone in declaring war when Churchill wanted to he would have been unable to do anything to prevent the annexation of Czechoslovakia. With no other nation declaring war for example what could have Churchill done to save Czechoslovakia?
Very little, at this point the forces in comparison was around 850,000 for the German Army and 220,000 for the British Army. With around half of the British Army being based around the world. In 1938 Germany had 1500 planes compared to less than half that for the British , the Czechs had about 1000 inferior planes. So shy of invading Germany by Sea, how could Britain get troops to Czechoslovakia? Only with France allowing them to would even then make little difference and as seen the reality of when both did go to war was that their military strategies were based on defensive measures from WW1, even though the French had a bigger army than Germany of which most of the forces were fighting in Poland. Not only that the British high command had no Blitzkrieg tactics and again their plans were defensive. In fact both French and British forces had the belief Poland would fall. Also who is to say if both had declared war a year earlier the pact with Russia would still have gone ahead.
That is the reality in 1938 Britain was no way geared up for war, even by 1941 after 2 years they were very much on the back foot. So what would have been the difference if Britain had gone to war, they did nothing to stop the invasion of Poland in 1939, was battered in France, left reeling with most of its equipment abandoned at Dunkirk and during the Battle of Britain was on its knee's even though heroic fighter pilots were taking the battle to the Luftwaffe, if it had not been for a change of tactics by bombing cities because of pride by the Germans after a daring raid on Berlin, the RAF would no doubt have been defeated. This change in tactic allowed the RAF to recoup its numbers, as by September they were losing more pilots and Planes than they could replace. Even after winning the battle of Britain still Britain faced more defeats again in Greece, showing even after two years of conflict they had not the means to take the fight to Germany at all and had to fight to save Colonial areas more. North Africa would have fallen also if Germany had of invaded both Gibraltar and Malta as it would have starved Britain of two vital Naval bases.
Not only that you have to take into account the feeling of many of the people who many were in living memory of the Great war of which many would have wanted to have avoided at all costs repeating itself, so what difference would have been made if Churchill had been charge?
Very little, one year extra to build arms.
So please explain to the whole forum what Churchill would have done different being as Britain was ill prepared for a war?
Take your time
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:04 pm
The CIA has released documents which for the first time formally acknowledge its key role in the 1953 coup which ousted Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadeq.
The documents were published on the independent National Security Archive on the 60th anniversary of the coup.
They come from the CIA's internal history of Iran from the mid-1970s.
"The military coup... was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy," says one excerpt.
1953 Prime Minister Mossadeq was overthrown after a bid to renationalise Iran's oil industry
The US role in the coup was openly referred to by then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000, and by President Barack Obama in a 2009 speech in Cairo.
But until now the intelligence agencies have issued "blanket denials" of their role, says the editor of the trove of documents, Malcolm Byrne.
This is believed to be the first time the CIA has itself admitted the part it played in concert with the British intelligence agency, MI6.
Mr Byrne says the documents are important not only for providing "new specifics as well as insights into the intelligence agency's actions before and after the operation", but because "political partisans on all sides, including the Iranian government, regularly invoke the coup".
The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, a non-governmental research institution based at George Washington University.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23762970
The documents were published on the independent National Security Archive on the 60th anniversary of the coup.
They come from the CIA's internal history of Iran from the mid-1970s.
"The military coup... was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy," says one excerpt.
1953 Prime Minister Mossadeq was overthrown after a bid to renationalise Iran's oil industry
The US role in the coup was openly referred to by then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000, and by President Barack Obama in a 2009 speech in Cairo.
But until now the intelligence agencies have issued "blanket denials" of their role, says the editor of the trove of documents, Malcolm Byrne.
This is believed to be the first time the CIA has itself admitted the part it played in concert with the British intelligence agency, MI6.
Mr Byrne says the documents are important not only for providing "new specifics as well as insights into the intelligence agency's actions before and after the operation", but because "political partisans on all sides, including the Iranian government, regularly invoke the coup".
The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, a non-governmental research institution based at George Washington University.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23762970
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:06 pm
No they mentioned it the Big Threesmelly_bandit wrote:Korben Dallas wrote:
Er.... i haven't mentioned independence ?? ....you feeling ok hot sweaty needing a lie down or something ?
you mention it right here
The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting held between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, who signed a protocol That pledged the Big Three's recognition of Iran's independence.
Seems like the same as Obama is trying to do
if as you say obama is trying to do the same, then it stands to reason that somewhere alone the way between then an now, Iran has lost its independence
you haven't got a clue what day it is do you??
But here you are
Milestones: 1937–1945
The Tehran Conference, 1943
The Tehran Conference was a meeting between U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in Tehran, Iran, between November 28 and December 1, 1943.
Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill at the Tehran Conference
Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill at the Tehran Conference
During the Conference, the three leaders coordinated their military strategy against Germany and Japan and made a number of important decisions concerning the post World War II era. The most notable achievements of the Conference focused on the next phases of the war against the Axis powers in Europe and Asia. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin engaged in discussions concerning the terms under which the British and Americans finally committed to launching Operation Overlord, an invasion of northern France, to be executed by May of 1944. The Soviets, who had long been pushing the Allies to open a second front, agreed to launch another major offensive on the Eastern Front that would divert German troops away from the Allied campaign in northern France. Stalin also agreed in principle that the Soviet Union would declare war against Japan following an Allied victory over Germany. In exchange for a Soviet declaration of war against Japan, Roosevelt conceded to Stalin’s demands for the Kurile Islands and the southern half of Sakhalin, and access to the ice-free ports of Darien (Dalian) and Port Arthur (Lashun Port) located on the Liaodong Peninsula in northern China. The exact details concerning this deal were not finalized, however, until the Yalta Conference of 1945.
At Tehran, the three Allied leaders also discussed important issues concerning the fate of Eastern Europe and Germany in the postwar period. Stalin pressed for a revision of Poland’s eastern border with the Soviet Union to match the line set by British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon in 1920. In order to compensate Poland for the resulting loss of territory, the three leaders agreed to move the German-Polish border to the Oder and Neisse rivers. This decision was not formally ratified, however, until the Potsdam Conference of 1945. During these negotiations Roosevelt also secured from Stalin his assurance that the Republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would be reincorporated into the Soviet Union only after the citizens of each republic voted on the question in a referendum. Stalin stressed, however, that that the matter would have to be resolved “in accordance with the Soviet constitution,” and that he would not consent to any international control over the elections. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin also broached the question of the possible postwar partition of Germany into Allied zones of occupation and agreed to have the European Advisory Commission “carefully study the question of dismemberment” before any final decision was taken.
Broader international cooperation also became a central theme of the negotiations at Tehran. Roosevelt and Stalin privately discussed the composition of the United Nations. During the Moscow Conference of the Foreign Ministers in October and November of 1943, the United States, Britain, China, and the Soviet Union had signed a four-power declaration whose fourth point called for the creation of a “general international organization” designed to promote “international peace and security.” At Tehran, Roosevelt outlined for Stalin his vision of the proposed organization in which the future United Nations would be dominated by “four policemen” (the United States, Britain, China, and Soviet Union) who “would have the power to deal immediately with any threat to the peace and any sudden emergency which requires action.”
Finally, the three leaders issued a “Declaration of the Three Powers Regarding Iran.” Within it, they thanked the Iranian Government for its assistance in the war against Germany and promised to provide it with economic assistance both during and after the war. Most importantly, the U.S., British, and Soviet Governments stated that they all shared a “desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Iran.”
Roosevelt secured many of his objectives during the Conference. The Soviet Union had committed to joining the war against Japan and expressed support for Roosevelt’s plans for the United Nations. Most importantly, Roosevelt believed that he had won Stalin’s confidence by proving that the United States was willing to negotiate directly with the Soviet Union and, most importantly, by guaranteeing the opening of the second front in France by the spring of 1944. However, Stalin also gained tentative concessions on Eastern Europe that would be confirmed during the later wartime conferences.
Last edited by Korben Dallas on Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:06 pm
Sassy wrote:smelly_bandit wrote:
you mention it right here
The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting held between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, who signed a protocol That pledged the Big Three's recognition of Iran's independence.
Seems like the same as Obama is trying to do
if as you say obama is trying to do the same, then it stands to reason that somewhere alone the way between then an now, Iran has lost its independence
you haven't got a clue what day it is do you??
Yes, they lost it when the CIA otherthrew the legitimate government and put the Shah in, he was a puppet for them.
so this shah
he was American then??
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:07 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:PhilDidge wrote:I think all can see smelly that you do not even know what year it is, so again, what you Fail to Grasp smelly is that Churchill was an ardent hater of communism and yet in his last years in office, he sought to appease them, showing how far removed you are from understanding any history.
So your argument here as seen is very moot as Churchill himself appeased his enemies.
Also Churchill did little to stop Germany invading Poland, in fact do you want to see what they promised and then went back on?
this is really getting to you isn't it
ive broken you in record time
normally it takes ages for you to resort to the broken record tactic
didge why do you constantly threaten to show me things??
do i want to see this?? do i want to see that??
ten times out of ten the answers is "yes please" and ten times out of ten you never deliver
://?roflmao?/:
So your argument is that Churchill would have stopped the Hitler in 1938, which I have debunked, to then also claim that Churchill who was well aware of the death camps denied the chance to bomb Auschwitz, would you like a little history lesson on that also?
To then shown Churchill appeased which makes your argument moot and on all these points you have no counter, so as always you have been
:/pwn://:
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:07 pm
Korben Dallas wrote:No they mentioned itsmelly_bandit wrote:
you mention it right here
The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting held between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, who signed a protocol That pledged the Big Three's recognition of Iran's independence.
Seems like the same as Obama is trying to do
if as you say obama is trying to do the same, then it stands to reason that somewhere alone the way between then an now, Iran has lost its independence
you haven't got a clue what day it is do you??
but hear you are
Milestones: 1937–1945
The Tehran Conference, 1943
The Tehran Conference was a meeting between U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in Tehran, Iran, between November 28 and December 1, 1943.
Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill at the Tehran Conference
Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill at the Tehran Conference
During the Conference, the three leaders coordinated their military strategy against Germany and Japan and made a number of important decisions concerning the post World War II era. The most notable achievements of the Conference focused on the next phases of the war against the Axis powers in Europe and Asia. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin engaged in discussions concerning the terms under which the British and Americans finally committed to launching Operation Overlord, an invasion of northern France, to be executed by May of 1944. The Soviets, who had long been pushing the Allies to open a second front, agreed to launch another major offensive on the Eastern Front that would divert German troops away from the Allied campaign in northern France. Stalin also agreed in principle that the Soviet Union would declare war against Japan following an Allied victory over Germany. In exchange for a Soviet declaration of war against Japan, Roosevelt conceded to Stalin’s demands for the Kurile Islands and the southern half of Sakhalin, and access to the ice-free ports of Darien (Dalian) and Port Arthur (Lashun Port) located on the Liaodong Peninsula in northern China. The exact details concerning this deal were not finalized, however, until the Yalta Conference of 1945.
At Tehran, the three Allied leaders also discussed important issues concerning the fate of Eastern Europe and Germany in the postwar period. Stalin pressed for a revision of Poland’s eastern border with the Soviet Union to match the line set by British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon in 1920. In order to compensate Poland for the resulting loss of territory, the three leaders agreed to move the German-Polish border to the Oder and Neisse rivers. This decision was not formally ratified, however, until the Potsdam Conference of 1945. During these negotiations Roosevelt also secured from Stalin his assurance that the Republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would be reincorporated into the Soviet Union only after the citizens of each republic voted on the question in a referendum. Stalin stressed, however, that that the matter would have to be resolved “in accordance with the Soviet constitution,” and that he would not consent to any international control over the elections. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin also broached the question of the possible postwar partition of Germany into Allied zones of occupation and agreed to have the European Advisory Commission “carefully study the question of dismemberment” before any final decision was taken.
Broader international cooperation also became a central theme of the negotiations at Tehran. Roosevelt and Stalin privately discussed the composition of the United Nations. During the Moscow Conference of the Foreign Ministers in October and November of 1943, the United States, Britain, China, and the Soviet Union had signed a four-power declaration whose fourth point called for the creation of a “general international organization” designed to promote “international peace and security.” At Tehran, Roosevelt outlined for Stalin his vision of the proposed organization in which the future United Nations would be dominated by “four policemen” (the United States, Britain, China, and Soviet Union) who “would have the power to deal immediately with any threat to the peace and any sudden emergency which requires action.”
Finally, the three leaders issued a “Declaration of the Three Powers Regarding Iran.” Within it, they thanked the Iranian Government for its assistance in the war against Germany and promised to provide it with economic assistance both during and after the war. Most importantly, the U.S., British, and Soviet Governments stated that they all shared a “desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Iran.”
Roosevelt secured many of his objectives during the Conference. The Soviet Union had committed to joining the war against Japan and expressed support for Roosevelt’s plans for the United Nations. Most importantly, Roosevelt believed that he had won Stalin’s confidence by proving that the United States was willing to negotiate directly with the Soviet Union and, most importantly, by guaranteeing the opening of the second front in France by the spring of 1944. However, Stalin also gained tentative concessions on Eastern Europe that would be confirmed during the later wartime conferences.
please someone wheel this one back into his cell
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:10 pm
Gladly put you back in your cell Smelly, because you talk crap and ignore all evidence in order to cling on to your nasty bigotted views. I don't know why anyone bothers even talking to you, you are beyond redemption and are proud of being a disgusting piece of dog shit.
Guest- Guest
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Similar topics» Obama Killed His Own Iran Deal
» Obama, Bush and the coming Arab-Iran War
» Why doesn't Trump make friends with Iran, like the Saudis?
» Fears of Lasting Rift as Obama Battles Pro-Israel Group on Iran
» Obama backs Iran-Russia defence relations; Israel 'shocked'
» Obama, Bush and the coming Arab-Iran War
» Why doesn't Trump make friends with Iran, like the Saudis?
» Fears of Lasting Rift as Obama Battles Pro-Israel Group on Iran
» Obama backs Iran-Russia defence relations; Israel 'shocked'
Page 1 of 3
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
» Interesting COVID figures
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
» Quill
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
» PHEW.
» And here's some more enrichment...
» John F Kennedy Assassination
» Where is everyone lately...?
» London violence over the weekend...
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...