Home
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
About Us & RulesWhat Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
5 posters
Page 3 of 3
Page 3 of 3 • 
1, 2, 3
What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:52 pm
First topic message reminder :
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/
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/
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:03 pm
Warren Moon wrote:
here is some things you may not be aware he said also and did:
When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.” As the resistance swelled, he announced: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits”. At other times, he said the plague was “merrily” culling the population.
Do not get me wrong he was a great leader but also as seen heartless.
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:03 pm
Hey...my dad flew missions over Malta from Egypt!
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:06 pm
Warren Moon wrote:Hey...my dad flew missions over Malta from Egypt!
Am impressed very much so, I never knew that keith!
As you know it is where my father grew up through this conflict and where his father served with the British!
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:07 pm
I've even got some bomb run photos.
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:55 pm
PhilDidge wrote:ALLAKAKA wrote:
Didge if I wanted to look smart I would point that Holocaust comes from a Greek word , that related to a ritual practice of sacrificing animals , where the animal was COOKED then eaten and the Offal was burnt in sacrifice.
The word Holocaust in it's self has too many loopholes , Jews were beaten , tortured and starved to death , in reality The biggest WAR CRIME and CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY in our History.
I pointed out to you it comes from the greek word, lol
Dear me, you fail to understand why it was termed as such, maybe reading about this may help you allakaka
Anyway why not answer the points you raised:
So what do you wanna know about the Blitz as you brought it up?
What was the most bombed place in WW2?
Why do you assume you are the ONLY ONE who knows the origin of the Greek word for Holocaust , I posted this on SKY several years ago.
And as to your question of the most bombed city in world war 2 , IN WHICH COUNTRY , I think we are all aware oif you ducking and diving. So other questions must be asked.
Which country.
Is it by NUMBER OF BOMBS.
Is it by WEIGHT OF BOMBS.
is it by the BIGGEST BOMB.
Is it based on AREA OF DEVASTATION.
Is it by DEATHS.
Is it by Numbers of CASUALTIES.
ALLAKAKA- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 779
Join date : 2013-12-09
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:43 am
ALLAKAKA wrote:PhilDidge wrote:
I pointed out to you it comes from the greek word, lol
Dear me, you fail to understand why it was termed as such, maybe reading about this may help you allakaka
Anyway why not answer the points you raised:
So what do you wanna know about the Blitz as you brought it up?
What was the most bombed place in WW2?
Why do you assume you are the ONLY ONE who knows the origin of the Greek word for Holocaust , I posted this on SKY several years ago.
I suggest you get a broom to scratch the end of your nose it has grown so big it is now out of reach of your arm. I posted the following which left you countering which is odd if you knew the meaning of the word:
Holocaust refers, quite literally, to the burning of corpses, hence why used in reference to many of the murdered 11 million by the Nazi's
Thus you did not know the meaning
And as to your question of the most bombed city in world war 2 , IN WHICH COUNTRY , I think we are all aware oif you ducking and diving. So other questions must be asked.
Which country.
Is it by NUMBER OF BOMBS.
Is it by WEIGHT OF BOMBS.
is it by the BIGGEST BOMB.
Is it based on AREA OF DEVASTATION.
Is it by DEATHS.
Is it by Numbers of CASUALTIES.
It is a simple question, here I shall help you even though the answer has already been given.
What was the most bombed place in WW2?
The Axis resolved to bomb or starve Malta into submission, by attacking its ports, towns, cities and Allied shipping supplying the island. Malta was one of the most intensively bombed areas during the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_(World_War_II)
Easy enough to understand now?
Join the back of the Que for where they are handing out free tickets to further your education.
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:25 am
i see the forum clown is stall rambling on about the holocaust (bit too interested in it i think)
you should know didge that this thread isnt about the holocaust or even WWII specifically
its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict
you should know didge that this thread isnt about the holocaust or even WWII specifically
its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:57 am
smelly_bandit wrote:i see the forum clown is stall rambling on about the holocaust (bit too interested in it i think)
Really, have not posted anything and been debating others since you chickened out of your gaff
you should know didge that this thread isnt about the holocaust or even WWII specifically
Really I thought it was about a comparison to your view that Chamberlain was responsible for millions of deaths due to his appeasement, in your own words and also how we learnt that Churchill appeased also, making your whole argument moot
its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict
Well as seen at the time, the USSR was a threat to the west, you have heard of the cold war have you not smelly? Churchill appeased Stalin in hi last years in office, anything else to add or are you going to keep chickening out of things you said.
Take your time, am not going anywhere
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:45 pm
"Really I thought it was about a comparison to your view that Chamberlain was responsible for millions of deaths due to his appeasement"
this is exactly why your arguments are so incoherent and irrelevant to the topic, you don't understand what is actually being discussed and then start rambling on about some conversation your fractured psyche is having with itself
this is exactly why your arguments are so incoherent and irrelevant to the topic, you don't understand what is actually being discussed and then start rambling on about some conversation your fractured psyche is having with itself
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:01 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:"Really I thought it was about a comparison to your view that Chamberlain was responsible for millions of deaths due to his appeasement"
this is exactly why your arguments are so incoherent and irrelevant to the topic, you don't understand what is actually being discussed and then start rambling on about some conversation your fractured psyche is having with itself
Are more excuses and not able to explain his point again, after his argument being rendered moot by Churchill's appeasement to the USSR
As I say I can wait for a reply, take your time
:D
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:47 pm
its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict
you really should try and deal with what the thread is about instead of creating straw man arguments in your head and then getting frustrated because no one knows what the hell you're talking about
the OP says it all
you really should try and deal with what the thread is about instead of creating straw man arguments in your head and then getting frustrated because no one knows what the hell you're talking about
the OP says it all
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:00 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict
you really should try and deal with what the thread is about instead of creating straw man arguments in your head and then getting frustrated because no one knows what the hell you're talking about
the OP says it all
Hilarious again, so now it was Churchill who solely dealt with the Nazi's now according to smelly, even though it was a combined effort by many nations that brought about bringing down Nazism. As seen already you made absurd claims that millions died due to the appeasement of Chamberlain yet fail to explain this, you fail to explain what Churchill would have done any different in 1938 and what is any difference this would have made and as seen there was a very real threat from the Soviet Union and Churchill in his last years in office appeased them, showing to make a comparison over Iran is not only absurd but utterly stupid being as seen to one threat he acted and yet to another appeased, thus rendering any chance of knowing how he would act here.
The fact is I am very happy to keep educating you and keep embarressing your answers to the whole forum, it makes my day
:D
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:40 pm
you've gone FULL retard on this one haven't
you're demanding that i speculate on what would have happened if we went to war earlier, why would i do that??
its irrelevant
you're ranting about how Churchill apparently appeased the soviets
its irrelevant
you're not understanding the basic concept of this thread
you've even said that you don't understand what is being said
this is what the thread is about
"its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict"
this is what you have turned it into in you own head
"Really I thought it was about a comparison to your view that Chamberlain was responsible for millions of deaths due to his appeasement"
as usual you thought wrong
you're demanding that i speculate on what would have happened if we went to war earlier, why would i do that??
its irrelevant
you're ranting about how Churchill apparently appeased the soviets
its irrelevant
you're not understanding the basic concept of this thread
you've even said that you don't understand what is being said
this is what the thread is about
"its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict"
this is what you have turned it into in you own head
"Really I thought it was about a comparison to your view that Chamberlain was responsible for millions of deaths due to his appeasement"
as usual you thought wrong
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:48 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:you've gone FULL retard on this one haven't
No debate more waffle
you're demanding that i speculate on what would have happened if we went to war earlier, why would i do that??
Because you made absurd claims like because of Chamberlain millions, died thus by this logic you think millions would not have died if Churchill had gone to war in 1938/ It is as simple as that, now you are clearly back tracking from this statement. So you now admit Chamberlain was not responsible for millions of deaths, or you back the view as to why
its irrelevant
As seen it is relevant to what you posted
you're ranting about how Churchill apparently appeased the soviets
He did
its irrelevant
Really so now a debate on appeasement with claims Churchill would not appease Iran when as seen he did appease his biggest enemy Communism, is now irrelevant to you? PMSL
you're not understanding the basic concept of this thread
Oh I do and as seen you have been weighed measured and left found wanting
you've even said that you don't understand what is being said
Oh I do and as seen you have been weighed measured and left found wanting
this is what the thread is about
"its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict"
Yes and as seen the USSR presented a very real danger to the west, and Churchill appeased the USSR, thus he acted on one and appeased on another, so there is no way of knowing how he would have acted today with Iran, this is something you are blindly ignoring because it debunks your silly article from the zionist
this is what you have turned it into in you own head
"Really I thought it was about a comparison to your view that Chamberlain was responsible for millions of deaths due to his appeasement"
as usual you thought wrong
As seen you are now back tracking from views you made, which is more proof you never admit when wrong and as seen your claim on Churchill holds no backing either, so on all counts you failed miserably
:D
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:59 pm
://?roflmao?/:
didge this topic has obviously got very deep under your skin, its clear what you're trying to do
you're desperately trying to alter the basis of the topic and change it to something its not about
i don't give a shit if and who Churchill appeased, i don't give a shit if you want me to speculate about WWII starting earlier
this thread is about on thing
"its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict"
deal with it
didge this topic has obviously got very deep under your skin, its clear what you're trying to do
you're desperately trying to alter the basis of the topic and change it to something its not about
i don't give a shit if and who Churchill appeased, i don't give a shit if you want me to speculate about WWII starting earlier
this thread is about on thing
"its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict"
deal with it
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:03 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:://?roflmao?/:
didge this topic has obviously got very deep under your skin, its clear what you're trying to do
The opposite, I am enjoying watching you squirm so badly over statements you made, it does not get any better than this :D
you're desperately trying to alter the basis of the topic and change it to something its not about
Really, a claim made in regards to appeasement and a claim that Churchill would not appease Iran, yet appeased the USSR
i don't give a shit if and who Churchill appeased, i don't give a shit if you want me to speculate about WWII starting earlier
Yes I know you don;t because it debunks your claims
this thread is about on thing
"its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict"
deal with it
Yes we want to know how did Churchill deal with the Nazis, was it giving up Poland to both Nazi Germany and then the USSR?
Yes I really wanted to know Churchill did deal with the danger presented by the Nazis, something you can't seem to answer.
So we know he was presented with another real danger and appeased them, thus making your claim to Iran moot and redundant.
10 out of 10 for desperation I give you that
:D
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:14 pm
who needs history when you have didge eh??
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:19 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:who needs history when you have didge eh??
Well it is needed in your case, most other people can actually read and understand history.
:D
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:26 pm
well good
lets hope i get to talk to one of those instead
really didge you have wasted my time by telling me to join this forum, you're even more full retard on this forum than on the other one
i thought you said there was some leftwing champion that was going to "chew me up" instead all ive seen so far is you and your pitbull sassy and the pair of you barely have a brain cell between you
lets hope i get to talk to one of those instead
really didge you have wasted my time by telling me to join this forum, you're even more full retard on this forum than on the other one
i thought you said there was some leftwing champion that was going to "chew me up" instead all ive seen so far is you and your pitbull sassy and the pair of you barely have a brain cell between you
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:27 pm
Yet this whole thread is speculative in naturesmelly_bandit wrote:you've gone FULL retard on this one haven't
you're demanding that i speculate on what would have happened if we went to war earlier, why would i do that??
its irrelevant
you're ranting about how Churchill apparently appeased the soviets
its irrelevant
you're not understanding the basic concept of this thread
you've even said that you don't understand what is being said
this is what the thread is about
"its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict"
this is what you have turned it into in you own head
"Really I thought it was about a comparison to your view that Chamberlain was responsible for millions of deaths due to his appeasement"
as usual you thought wrong
Even the title is a speculation
That`s what this thread is all about a "speculation " ?
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:33 pm
Korben Dallas wrote:Yet this whole thread is speculative in naturesmelly_bandit wrote:you've gone FULL retard on this one haven't
you're demanding that i speculate on what would have happened if we went to war earlier, why would i do that??
its irrelevant
you're ranting about how Churchill apparently appeased the soviets
its irrelevant
you're not understanding the basic concept of this thread
you've even said that you don't understand what is being said
this is what the thread is about
"its a comparison between the danger that the Nazis presented to the world and how Churchill dealt with it, and the danger that a nuclear Iran presents to the world and the way Obama is appeasing them and paving the way to a future conflict"
this is what you have turned it into in you own head
"Really I thought it was about a comparison to your view that Chamberlain was responsible for millions of deaths due to his appeasement"
as usual you thought wrong
Even the title is a speculation
That`s what this thread is all about a "speculation " ?
i don't imagine for one second that you have even read the OP
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:35 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:well good
lets hope i get to talk to one of those instead
really didge you have wasted my time by telling me to join this forum, you're even more full retard on this forum than on the other one
i thought you said there was some leftwing champion that was going to "chew me up" instead all ive seen so far is you and your pitbull sassy and the pair of you barely have a brain cell between you
Are bless more abuse and I never told you to join I said you were too chicken to take on people as seen I was wrong you were too chicken but right you would get spanked in debates.
Give it time on one posters, he has yet to chew you up and spit you out
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:35 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:Korben Dallas wrote:
Yet this whole thread is speculative in nature
Even the title is a speculation
That`s what this thread is all about a "speculation " ?
i don't imagine for one second that you have even read the OP
Clearly he has being as this is all you can counter with.
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:40 pm
PhilDidge wrote:smelly_bandit wrote:well good
lets hope i get to talk to one of those instead
really didge you have wasted my time by telling me to join this forum, you're even more full retard on this forum than on the other one
i thought you said there was some leftwing champion that was going to "chew me up" instead all ive seen so far is you and your pitbull sassy and the pair of you barely have a brain cell between you
Are bless more abuse and I never told you to join I said you were too chicken to take on people as seen I was wrong you were too chicken but right you would get spanked in debates.
Give it time on one posters, he has yet to chew you up and spit you out
come on didge you were practically begging me to join
the only reason i came here was out of mild curiosity over who the left wing champion you were bragging about was
so far im underwhelmed
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:41 pm
PhilDidge wrote:smelly_bandit wrote:
i don't imagine for one second that you have even read the OP
Clearly he has being as this is all you can counter with.
uh huh
he was waffling on about irans independence and how obama is trying to help them get independent
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:42 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:PhilDidge wrote:
Are bless more abuse and I never told you to join I said you were too chicken to take on people as seen I was wrong you were too chicken but right you would get spanked in debates.
Give it time on one posters, he has yet to chew you up and spit you out
come on didge you were practically begging me to join
the only reason i came here was out of mild curiosity over who the left wing champion you were bragging about was
so far im underwhelmed
Well yes it is better that you are embarrassed on a bigger audience, guilty as charged on that and I must admit has worked out better than I though
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:48 pm
clearly you're not one who suffers from embarrassment are you??
:D
:D
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:49 pm
smelly_bandit wrote:clearly you're not one who suffers from embarrassment are you??
:D
Mate you have made my day, everyday when you post!
:D
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:50 pm
you must have a very boring life if im the high point of your day
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:00 pm
Not really I come here for added amusement which you offer up in abundance with absurdity!
:D
:D
Guest- Guest
Re: What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement
by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:34 pm
Is that a side order is it??
Guest- Guest
Page 3 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 3 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...