English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler

2006-09-27 19:24:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Chamberlain's peace for our time deal (i.e. the surrender of the Sudetenland to Germany) with Hitler was internationally acclaimed and praised at home and abroad, by among others Pope Pius XI, Ireland's Eamon de Valera, the United States administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Canada's Mackenzie King.

2006-09-27 19:27:05 · update #1

funny liberal quote -> "The Republicans didnt want to go to war the democrats did."

2006-09-27 19:29:07 · update #2

funny liberal quote -> "They squandered the worlds great sense of unity" ha ha ha ha ha, guess you missed the fact that most of the Asian and Arab world was celebrating.

2006-09-27 19:33:08 · update #3

So terrorists are not the ones to blame? HA ah ha ha, only a liberal can be so idiotic!

2006-09-27 20:05:54 · update #4

13 answers

Not at all. In the 40's when they were at war with Hitler all the liberals came around even Chamberlin. Not today, they still think we can appease the islamic fascists.

2006-09-27 19:27:07 · answer #1 · answered by Are_You_Stupid? 2 · 0 2

I think Europe is doing what they did in the 1930's. As for the United States, the Republican at first did not like th war idea, but agreed to lend lease idea for the European Allies. Than they went along with the Democrats and stayed on board through the end.

The difference today is that the Democrats went on board after 9/11 because it was in their political interests. Now through a heavy PR campaign they are against the war on terror because they feel it will help them politically.

Many Democrats will say that the war on terror is used by the Republican for political gain. And so on.

So now the Dems are called un-patriotic and the name calling is starting. This is where we are today.

So will the choice be made that proactively keep the world safe? I don't know. Will politicians actually work together to make us safer? I don't know.

The facts are that our troops are fighting overseas for us. They believe in what they are doing, with a few exception which are expected.. And who to know better than them on what is really going on. We have the highest reenlistment ever in the history of our country's military. There must be a reason for it. I do not think that our troops are stupid, but rather more infomed than we are on the current situation.

So the least we can do is support them in their decision. Come on they are signing up for second and third tours.No one is forcing them to sign up again. These troops have families and risk never seeing them again by reenlisting? They must really believe in this. So I will believe in it also. Who am I do question their motives? Heck, who are we to question them?

So the question this election should not be what politician will pull us out of Iraq or keep us in Iraq? But what politicians will support out troops in what they believe in, and stay behind them until the job is done. In recent history it was normal for the United States to do things half way. We need to stop that nonsense and just get the job done.

2006-09-27 20:20:42 · answer #2 · answered by Kountry 2 · 0 0

First let me say that many answerer's here have assumed that the asker is male. Wrong! She is only quoting a male. She is actually a very lovely woman with a strong sense of patriotism. Let me say that I think President Bush made a second mistake in the War. He didn't go in soon enough. I believe that the illusive WMDs did in fact exist and still do. They have simply been moved out of the country. The enemy had plenty of time to do it. And all traces of them could have been sterilized. And I believe they can still be used, given the right opportunity and resources. We must finish this. To back out now would, in my opinion signal the end of the American way of life as we know it. I've noticed here that even those who have chosen not to register an opinion don't care for the Liberal point of view (re: all the thumbs down) The Lib point of view seems to be that we should get out of the war and make peace with the enemy through the process of some kind of political BS. WAKE UP people. The radical Muslims do not want peace. They don't want talks, They don't even want surrender. THEY WANT US DEAD!!!!! Left wing, right wing, Dems, Reps, Libs. EVERYBODY. If you're not Muslim they want you dead. Our troops are not just fighting for Iraq's freedom, they are fighting for your very lives. Each and every one of you. Geeeeze!!! Wake up people. And just as a reminder...9-ll did really happen. And right after it happened, every man, woman and child of the age of understanding were all for going to war. What's changed?

2016-03-26 20:58:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Do conservative have a clue what they are doing in this War on terror? Have they read any of the many reports by our national intelligence agencies saying we are fighting this war wrong. I think that 95% of liberals think we need to be proactive and eliminate terrorism for our children and grandchildren BUT there are smart ways to fight terrorism and STUPID ways to fight terrorism....Guess what the Bush administration is....You got it man....STUPID....They squandered the worlds great sense of unity we had after Sept 11th and now we are so weak....Wake up and smell the coffee dude....its not about liberal appeasement its about conservative boneheadedness....Amen!!!

2006-09-27 19:30:37 · answer #4 · answered by dharmabear 3 · 1 0

If you read some history you will find that Chamberlains government was Conservative (right wing) and had most of the fervent english supporters of Hitler. They thought he was doing a great job persecuting the communists.

2006-09-27 19:29:48 · answer #5 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0 0

it was actually the conservatives of the 1930's that wanted to keep an isolationist policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
take notice that Chamberlain was in the CONSERVATIVE party.

edit: and yes the Republicans opposed going to the war, their argument was that it would violate the monroe doctrine.

2006-09-27 19:26:03 · answer #6 · answered by Mr.happy 4 · 0 0

The Republicans didnt want to go to war the democrats did.

2006-09-27 19:27:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think you are pretty close.

Only difference is it is the conservatives who are blindly looking for some one to blame for societies problems... like the nazis in the 1930s.

You were close!

2006-09-27 20:00:46 · answer #8 · answered by CoolLuke 7 · 0 0

The situations are not comparable. Hitler had an army.

2006-09-27 19:30:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No but the Republican think Bush is God and this in itself is scary

2006-09-27 19:50:46 · answer #10 · answered by bconehead 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers