Libyan Ambassador Killed...

[expandspanos]

Something pretty "telling" happened- one picture was circulated of supposedly Egyptian protestors wearing Guy Fawkes masks in front of the Embassy with the words "Prophet Muhammed" spray painted in the background.


The caption reads: "Egyptian protesters wearing Guy Fawkes masks pose for a photo graffiti on a wall of the US embassy during a protest in Cairo, Egypt."


Does anyone notice anything funny about these "protestors?"
The stupid dumbshits forgot they were wearing their press passes before they did their staged photo-op!

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/liby ... 16944.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But, why on Earth would the media want to demonize anyone who wears a Guy Fawkes mask?, I just can't figure it out...

[SDHornet]

Just saw this....I agree with this. You are right on this.

You guys are a couple of History Channel auto didacts. The Treaty of Versailles created much resentment, but it was not the cornerstone cause of WWII. It provided the sentiment, gave rise to the Nationalist movements, but France and England willingly ignored the situation and then relied on appeasement rather than strengthening their forces on the Continent to deter Hitler and threaten him with an immediate second front.

I suggest that rather than getting your information from television you should concentrate on more scholarly sources. A good start would be Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Willuam L. Shirer. It is a very widely accepted chronology, and there's a whole chapter in there on diplomacy with the Nazis. It is about as basic as it gets.

Of course Germans were humiliated. They should have been; they waged a war of aggression in Europe (although many other countries were culpable for their ill advised mutual defense pacts).

However, the failures which facilitated the second war were those of France and Britain, who balked at enforcing the demilitarization clauses of the treaty (for fear of politically empowering the Nazis and other Nationalist groups.... this is also known as appeasement) and then their subsequent decisions to remain static and weak on the French frontier while Hitler carved up the Sudetenland. Also appeasement. It was precisely the aloof foreign policy of those two countries which politically boosted the National Socialists.

There are documented conversation between Goebbels and Hitler, referencing directly how Chamberlain's naïveté was their greatest asset prior to the annexations and the attack on Poland. Hitler said it himself.

Were the Brits in any position to actually enforce the demilitarization zones besides just issuing a stern rebuke?

[CID1990]

You guys are a couple of History Channel auto didacts. The Treaty of Versailles created much resentment, but it was not the cornerstone cause of WWII. It provided the sentiment, gave rise to the Nationalist movements, but France and England willingly ignored the situation and then relied on appeasement rather than strengthening their forces on the Continent to deter Hitler and threaten him with an immediate second front.

I suggest that rather than getting your information from television you should concentrate on more scholarly sources. A good start would be Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Willuam L. Shirer. It is a very widely accepted chronology, and there's a whole chapter in there on diplomacy with the Nazis. It is about as basic as it gets.

Of course Germans were humiliated. They should have been; they waged a war of aggression in Europe (although many other countries were culpable for their ill advised mutual defense pacts).

However, the failures which facilitated the second war were those of France and Britain, who balked at enforcing the demilitarization clauses of the treaty (for fear of politically empowering the Nazis and other Nationalist groups.... this is also known as appeasement) and then their subsequent decisions to remain static and weak on the French frontier while Hitler carved up the Sudetenland. Also appeasement. It was precisely the aloof foreign policy of those two countries which politically boosted the National Socialists.

There are documented conversation between Goebbels and Hitler, referencing directly how Chamberlain's naïveté was their greatest asset prior to the annexations and the attack on Poland. Hitler said it himself.

Were the Brits in any position to actually enforce the demilitarization zones besides just issuing a stern rebuke?

Nope. Not when Hitler began beating the drum, because they didn't move more forces to the mainland. Combined with France they had sufficient forces to make Hitler think twice about Poland, but the UK never sent them over. What was evacuated from Dunkirk was a skeleton crew, and of course they never expected a German attack in 1940 anyway, because Chamberlain said Hitler was just peachy.

Hitler and Goebbels had yucks over his naïveté.

[Tod]

Just saw this....I agree with this. You are right on this.

You guys are a couple of History Channel auto didacts. The Treaty of Versailles created much resentment, but it was not the cornerstone cause of WWII. It provided the sentiment, gave rise to the Nationalist movements, but France and England willingly ignored the situation and then relied on appeasement rather than strengthening their forces on the Continent to deter Hitler and threaten him with an immediate second front.

I suggest that rather than getting your information from television you should concentrate on more scholarly sources. A good start would be Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Willuam L. Shirer. It is a very widely accepted chronology, and there's a whole chapter in there on diplomacy with the Nazis. It is about as basic as it gets.

Of course Germans were humiliated. They should have been; they waged a war of aggression in Europe (although many other countries were culpable for their ill advised mutual defense pacts).

However, the failures which facilitated the second war were those of France and Britain, who balked at enforcing the demilitarization clauses of the treaty (for fear of politically empowering the Nazis and other Nationalist groups.... this is also known as appeasement) and then their subsequent decisions to remain static and weak on the French frontier while Hitler carved up the Sudetenland. Also appeasement. It was precisely the aloof foreign policy of those two countries which politically boosted the National Socialists.

There are documented conversation between Goebbels and Hitler, referencing directly how Chamberlain's naïveté was their greatest asset prior to the annexations and the attack on Poland. Hitler said it himself.

I see nothing here that contradicts what I had written, you just provided more detail.

[CID1990]

You guys are a couple of History Channel auto didacts. The Treaty of Versailles created much resentment, but it was not the cornerstone cause of WWII. It provided the sentiment, gave rise to the Nationalist movements, but France and England willingly ignored the situation and then relied on appeasement rather than strengthening their forces on the Continent to deter Hitler and threaten him with an immediate second front.

I suggest that rather than getting your information from television you should concentrate on more scholarly sources. A good start would be Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Willuam L. Shirer. It is a very widely accepted chronology, and there's a whole chapter in there on diplomacy with the Nazis. It is about as basic as it gets.

Of course Germans were humiliated. They should have been; they waged a war of aggression in Europe (although many other countries were culpable for their ill advised mutual defense pacts).

However, the failures which facilitated the second war were those of France and Britain, who balked at enforcing the demilitarization clauses of the treaty (for fear of politically empowering the Nazis and other Nationalist groups.... this is also known as appeasement) and then their subsequent decisions to remain static and weak on the French frontier while Hitler carved up the Sudetenland. Also appeasement. It was precisely the aloof foreign policy of those two countries which politically boosted the National Socialists.

There are documented conversation between Goebbels and Hitler, referencing directly how Chamberlain's naïveté was their greatest asset prior to the annexations and the attack on Poland. Hitler said it himself.

I see nothing here that contradicts what I had written, you just provided more detail.

Then yours is a comprehension problem and I cannot help you.

[LeadBolt]

Were the Brits in any position to actually enforce the demilitarization zones besides just issuing a stern rebuke?

Nope. Not when Hitler began beating the drum, because they didn't move more forces to the mainland. Combined with France they had sufficient forces to make Hitler think twice about Poland, but the UK never sent them over. What was evacuated from Dunkirk was a skeleton crew, and of course they never expected a German attack in 1940 anyway, because Chamberlain said Hitler was just peachy.

Hitler and Goebbels had yucks over his naïveté.

I sure am glad that Obama and company have more foreign policy experience than the Brits and French in the 1930's. Nevermind....

[free7694]

It used to be that when we were attacked, everyone rallied behind the President. 9/11 was 11 years ago and everyone backed Bush, at least for a while.

Sad and unpatriotic that people are choosing now to attack Obama. Country first, party should be lower on the list.

People backed Bush because his reaction to 9/11 wasn't "Go to Vegas for a fundraiser."

Obama is the one choosing party over country.

[Tod]

I see nothing here that contradicts what I had written, you just provided more detail.

Then yours is a comprehension problem and I cannot help you.

You're completely wrong. And since mine was the simpler of the two, I worry for your mental health. It might make sense if it were reversed.

[Tod]

It used to be that when we were attacked, everyone rallied behind the President. 9/11 was 11 years ago and everyone backed Bush, at least for a while.

Sad and unpatriotic that people are choosing now to attack Obama. Country first, party should be lower on the list.

People backed Bush because his reaction to 9/11 wasn't "Go to Vegas for a fundraiser."

Obama is the one choosing party over country.

No, it was "attack a country that had nothing to do with it. I'll be in Crawford clearing brush and planting switchgrass".

[CID1990]

Then yours is a comprehension problem and I cannot help you.

You're completely wrong. And since mine was the simpler of the two, I worry for your mental health. It might make sense if it were reversed.

Ok.

Somebody call Tod and tell him MPLSBison got his password.

[BlueHen86]

It used to be that when we were attacked, everyone rallied behind the President. 9/11 was 11 years ago and everyone backed Bush, at least for a while.

Sad and unpatriotic that people are choosing now to attack Obama. Country first, party should be lower on the list.

People backed Bush because his reaction to 9/11 wasn't "Go to Vegas for a fundraiser."

Obama is the one choosing party over country.

Wow, your not partisan.

It was Romney who attacked Obama before he had all the facts in. Even many on the GOP had a problem with that. But not you apparently.

[BlueHen86]

People backed Bush because his reaction to 9/11 wasn't "Go to Vegas for a fundraiser."

Obama is the one choosing party over country.

No, it was "attack a country that had nothing to do with it. I'll be in Crawford clearing brush and planting switchgrass".

But that was okay because Bush was a conk and could therefore do nothing wrong.

[kalm]

No, it was "attack a country that had nothing to do with it. I'll be in Crawford clearing brush and planting switchgrass".

But that was okay because Bush was a conk and could therefore do nothing wrong.

+1. And he also had foreign policy experience.