Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W

The Washington Post ^ | 7/1/07 | Lynne Olson

[KC_Conspirator]

I saw this piece of trash in the infamously leftist Sunday "Outlook" section of the ComPost. The author has not a sliver of historical knowledge and is either totally ignorant of historical facts, or criminally guilty of publishing lies.

I just love the "Go it alone" analogy. Britain went it alone for over 2 years before Germany declared war on the US. The whole article was infantile; it was high school quality.

[Wombat101]

As someone who walked a way fromt he carnage of the World Trade Center, vaudine, I must disagree.

The enemy does not make distinctions between the “innocent” and the “guilty”, and neither should we.

The enemy does not play by any rules that can be considered “civilized”, and neither should we.

The enemy does not wish to bring enlightenment to the world, or to improve the human condition, it seeks to convert or enslave it in order to fufill the propohecy of Muhammed (the only reason Islam still exists as a viable force int he world).

I’m sorry, but when the initial demand of your enemy is “die or surrender”, and it refuses to make any other accomodation, then you have no compulsion or inclination to “wear the White hat”, as it were.

Islam (not just fundamentalist Islam) does not recognize the conventions of civilized society such as natural rights, rational thought or tolerance. It does not believe in a brighter future for mankind (inherant in the Judeo-Christian ethic is a belief that there is something to LOOK FORWARD to, i.e. the Savior will come (or return) and usher in universal peace. In Islam, universal peace only comes when it’s enemies are dead, converted or enslaved).

While I agree with you wholeheartedly that America must serve as a beacon to those who seek freedom, it does not stand to reason that we should make accomodation with concepts which insure that liberty will always be endangered. It’s a terrible moral dilemma, to be sure, but I would lean towards saving the system from an outside threat first and moralizing on it later on.

If we don’t, we won’t have the freedom to moralize at all.

[tophat9000]

But Churchill would snort, I believe, at the administration's equation of "Islamofascism," an amorphous, ill-defined movement of killers forced to resort to terrorism by their lack of military might, to Nazi Germany, a global power that had already conquered several countries before Churchill took office in 1940.

Churchill was warning from the start of Nazi Germany when it was still very militarily weak (and was call a war monger for it)... the whole historical point of why appeasement was so bad is Nazi Germany was bluffing and exploiting the lack of will of the west till it was to late... the west could have strangled Nazi Germany with easy at it's birth and for severals years after and has every justification to do so for violating the term on the WW1 armistice

(Gee a bluffing dictator violating the terms of a peace treaty from a recent war---never heard of that before)

This persons point is so stupid... why did Churchill get the label "war monger" in the mid 30's... how was Churchill later famed for being the lone voice in the wilderness waring of the Nazi threat while European slept....if... Churchill only lobbied for war on Nazi Germany after war had started in 39 and had already conquered several countries before Churchill took office in 1940

[rlmorel]

Excellent analysis, wideawake.

[Wombat101]

Churchill saw Islamic culture and what it entailed close up: he was AT the Battle of Obdurman (sp?) in 1898, and noted the Islamic tendency to worship death and backwardness as virtuous.

[vaudine]

I don't know what you read in my post, but I agree with you 100%. What I meant about Bush needing a little more Old Testament in his spine is "An eye for an eye"--meet the terrorists with the death they want to mete out.

vaudine

[Wombat101]

I got the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that you thought Bush was handcuffed by his religious ideals.

Apologies if I misunderstood.

[rlmorel]

"...Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Churchill Bush actually go it alone against Hitler Islamofacism for a time prior to America’s The rest of the World's entry into WWII The War on Terror?

Against a great deal of pressure not to. Many in the British American government were pushing for a conditional surrender.

See? Who needs historians when we have text editors...:)?

[tophat9000]

Pat Buchannan, and more recently, Ron Paul, are the closest to being like Winston Churchill in our time.

How the F--- do you come up with that one ... are you even aware that Germany did not want war with England and offer them peace after in started did not want the British Empire (in fact Hitler saw the British Empire and Germany as natural allies)... Germany was only interested in the Continent

In fact... Germany did not declare war or attack England first...

[LibLieSlayer]

Just remember that satan uses deception to deceive. Bush may have seen what satan wanted him to see... and pooty-tang is an evil man!

LLS

[Chi-townChief]

ok .........

[rlmorel]

Both Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are isolationists. Winston Churchill was not.

Churchill was also a leader of men.

[LibLieSlayer]

“Pat Buchannan, and more recently, Ron Paul, are the closest to being like Winston Churchill in our time.”

Ward Churchill maybe... With that kind of humor, you need your own HBO special.

LLS

[caveat emptor]

The meeting with Putin the other day reminded me of- “Peace in our time!”

Chamberlain met with Hitler. Churchill met with Stalin. Jacques Chirac met with Saddam Hussein.

[tophat9000]

Both Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are isolationists. Winston Churchill was not

Exactly... even Buchanan & Paul would call you nuts to compared them to Winston Churchill...

[Smedley]

Churchill understood, like a great many of his contemporaries did not, that there was no accomodation with Nazism to be made (none that was desireable, in any case), and so, he determined the only course of action available to him; resistance. Bush has reached (almost) the same conclusion vis-a-vis radical Islam.

The major difference, of course, is that Bush has made the mistake of not understanding that the way to peace with the Islamic world is a systematic destruction of the Islamic system and world view, making it apparent that it is bankrupt morally, socially, economically, politically, but to attempt to “save” it with enlightened reason, “democracy” and charity.

These are V-E-R-Y good points, but remember that most of the world has its collective heads up their collective butts, and considers Bush a rabid warmonger as it is.

The world is now a much softer wussified entity than it was, full of chowderheads too stupid to realize that Islam is not their friends. Let's face it, Bill Mahr would rather have his head chopped off by a drooling imam than admit that Bush was right about anything.

Until people are drinking puddle water and picking undigested oats from horse dung for susentance, they will not begin to question the fundamental viability of their current system.

Sure they will - and just say its all Bush's or Israel's fault as they do now.

[vaudine]

I think he is more confused than handcuffed. For instance, the amnesty bill. His friendship with American hispanics in TX, and ties to Mexican elites including Jeb's wife, plus his Christian ethic of helping the downtrodden get a foot up, makes him see the illegals as the same kind of people as those he knows, and they are not. They lack the educatioin and foresight to see the need to do anything other than grab at money for simple sustenance. They see the US as one giant patron instead of that beacon to a better life as a good citizen of the US.

Even if Bush knew they were all good guys, he would still not be excused for ignoring our laws and Constitution and orderly immigration. He has failed the citizens of the US in his shortsighted outlook. To some extent, do you think he has rose colored glasses about Islam as a whole?

vaudine

[TheDon]

Well said.

[Churchillspirit]

Unlike Bush and Chamberlain, Churchill was never in favor of his country going it alone.

Bit unfair that.

Britain was on no position in 1939/40 to go it alone, whilst the USA could at any time.

[Smedley]

I just love the "Go it alone" analogy. Britain went it alone for over 2 years before Germany declared war on the US. The whole article was infantile; it was high school quality.

Yes, but Britain had France on their side at the start of the invasion of Poland, and according to the Left, "going it alone" means doing so without France.

I thought everyone knew that.