When will the self-loathing end?

[Filo]

Well, if you can find numerous examples, why choose the Pope as the example. The examples may well be out there, but the Pope as head of state and "no difference" between the Pope and Calderon is real weak (even if you are technically correct on the Pope as head of state), and you probably realize that.

[Elvado]

May 22, 2010 11:00:42 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

May 22, 2010 7:46:35 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Nice of you to read between the lines of the Pope's speech. You still don't see a difference in the broadside that Calderon delivered?

Moreover, do you not accept the inherent differnce in the role of the Pontiff from that of the President of Mexico? Calderon comes to the US solely as a secular political leader. When the Pope travels to the US he comes as the leader of the Roman Catholic faith.

Finally, find me the direct attack where the Pope challenges the US on its own laws/policies.

Um, one of those two articles IS a direct attack by the Pope on U.S. laws (the key is you actually have to click the link). And while the second is reading between the lines, the stuff between the lines is in fluorescent and flashing. You really think it's not blatantly obvious that the Pope is criticizing U.S. policy when he discusses the need for respect of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (a resolution the U.S. admitted it was not respecting) a week after directly criticizing U.S. interrogation policies and about 30 minutes after discussing interrogation policies with Bush? In the real world that I live in, that's a criticism of U.S. policies. Now I know that story doesn't fit well with your pre-written "democrats are bad, but republicans are immune" story, but those are the facts.

And there is no difference between the Pope and Calderon in this respect because they are both foreign leaders on official visits at the white house. Just because the Pope represents a religion as well as a state, I don't understand why you think that would give him a free pass to criticize the U.S. laws on his state visit.

Finally, I'm sure with about 3 minutes you could find numerous cases of foreign leaders criticizing policy at the white house (the pope is just one example)-that's my point. The only reason you are fixated on Calderon as opposed to the other times when no news media picked it up is that you have an axe to grind with Obama and you agree with the law; I think that's pretty apparent to everyone. If some leader came and criticized the bailout (assuming you were opposed to it) I don't think we would hear an ounce of complaint from you.

Seldom right and wrong again. I think the Arizona law is a well-intentioned but hamfisted measure, but it is the duly enacted law of one of our 50 states. If Calderon doesn't like us or our laws, maybe he'll clean up his own cesspool of a nation enough to keep his people at home.

The current President and his Democrat Colleagues have shown a willingness to routinely apologize for the US as a first resort. Assume for a minute that you are technically right on the Pope's comments. How do you square the standing ovation afforded Calderon by the Democrat Congressmen? He walked into their House, crapped on the rug and they congratulated him. My surmise is because they actually loathe our country; you probably don't agree. That's fine.

[redskins12820]

May 22, 2010 11:14:36 GMT -5 Filo said:

Well, if you can find numerous examples, why choose the Pope as the example. The examples may well be out there, but the Pope as head of state and "no difference" between the Pope and Calderon is real weak (even if you are technically correct on the Pope as head of state), and you probably realize that.

The connection is not weak at all. Foreign leader on official visit to the U.S. speaking at white house. Please let me know why it is a weak and don't say ideology because foreign political leaders often represent ideologies. Is that going to excuse criticism by Israel's PM too? Originally I was not choosing the Pope as an example, but my hypo of a CA law against abortion unintentionally put me on that route.

If we don't like what they say, don't let them visit next time, but let's not have a double standard. We go to other countries all the time and criticize their policies. You don't think Bush or Obama went to Iraq or Afghanistan and criticized policies or leaders there? Give me a break.

[Elvado]

The problem is not the actions of the foreign leader, it is the acquiescence of our elected officials and, specifically and most appallingly, the Democrat Members of Congress who cheered him on.

I'm willing to give the President a pass on decorum grounds but those House Democrats should be run out of town on a rail.

It's kind of like a family; internally we can Edited and moan at each other all day long, but no one walks into my house and talks about my family.

If you think the House Democrats acted appropriately, more's the pity.

[redskins12820]

May 22, 2010 19:28:29 GMT -5 Elvado said:

The problem is not the actions of the foreign leader, it is the acquiescence of our elected officials and, specifically and most appallingly, the Democrat Members of Congress who cheered him on.

I'm willing to give the President a pass on decorum grounds but those House Democrats should be run out of town on a rail.

It's kind of like a family; internally we can Edited and moan at each other all day long, but no one walks into my house and talks about my family.

If you think the House Democrats acted appropriately, more's the pity.

I mean I don't see anything wrong with their actions per se. They disagree with a law, a foreign leader voices his disagreement and they cheer. I'm not really disturbed. The only way I would be disturbed by Congress cheering on a foreign leader is for things that Congress' support would horrify me irrespective of any foreign leader's comments. I just don't see why the democrat's objections to the bill are fine, but once they channel those objections through support of a foreign leader echoing those objections, Congress' actions become so, well, objectionable.

[Elvado]

You really don't get it do you? They can agree all they like. You do not cheer on a foreign leader in the well of the House as he assails the United States of America, period.

Their objections to the bill are fine. They might be right. But you do not cheer while an outsider takes on your own family. End of debate.

[redskins12820]

May 23, 2010 6:17:48 GMT -5 Elvado said:

You really don't get it do you? They can agree all they like. You do not cheer on a foreign leader in the well of the House as he assails the United States of America, period.

Their objections to the bill are fine. They might be right. But you do not cheer while an outsider takes on your own family. End of debate.

Right, support USA USA USA no matter what they do. Got it-have any propaganda posters ready to print? Let them cheer. I can see it now: Churchill speaking to Congress in 1940 and begging for ships and supplies, Democrats cheer him on for standing up to the Nazis, and you get upset and call Democrats backstabbers.

[The Stig]

May 23, 2010 6:17:48 GMT -5 Elvado said:

You really don't get it do you? They can agree all they like. You do not cheer on a foreign leader in the well of the House as he assails the United States of America, period.

Their objections to the bill are fine. They might be right. But you do not cheer while an outsider takes on your own family. End of debate.

Calderon never assailed the United States of America. He criticized one specific law. If Calderon had come and said the United States was an evil country that should be wiped off the face of the earth, then I'd be with you. But he didn't do that.

I've never understood the "never let foreigners criticize us" attitude. We criticize foreign governments constantly, often on their own soil. Hillary ripped the Pakistani government a new one when she was over there. She was speaking the truth, and it's arguably had positive effects for our national security.

[Elvado]

May 23, 2010 11:14:50 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

May 23, 2010 6:17:48 GMT -5 Elvado said:

You really don't get it do you? They can agree all they like. You do not cheer on a foreign leader in the well of the House as he assails the United States of America, period.

Their objections to the bill are fine. They might be right. But you do not cheer while an outsider takes on your own family. End of debate.

Right, support USA USA USA no matter what they do. Got it-have any propaganda posters ready to print? Let them cheer. I can see it now: Churchill speaking to Congress in 1940 and begging for ships and supplies, Democrats cheer him on for standing up to the Nazis, and you get upset and call Democrats backstabbers.

Except that by and large, the Democrats like Old Joe Kennedy were appeasers...

[The Stig]

The hardcore isolationists in 1940 were actually Republicans. But both parties were pretty mixed in their views. In the 1940 election Wilkie accused FDR of leaving the country unprepared for war, then promptly turned around and accused FDR of secretly plotting to drag the US into the war.

There was also a massive difference between German sympathizers like the elder Kennedy and Lindbergh and appeasers like Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain saved the world at Munich in 1938. If Churchill had been PM in 1938 the British would be speaking German right now.

[Elvado]

May 23, 2010 19:02:03 GMT -5 The Stig said:

The hardcore isolationists in 1940 were actually Republicans. But both parties were pretty mixed in their views. In the 1940 election Wilkie accused FDR of leaving the country unprepared for war, then promptly turned around and accused FDR of secretly plotting to drag the US into the war.

There was also a massive difference between German sympathizers like the elder Kennedy and Lindbergh and appeasers like Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain saved the world at Munich in 1938. If Churchill had been PM in 1938 the British would be speaking German right now.

There it is. Neville Chamberlain saved the world. With that world-view you are a lock for Barry's next big National Security job.

[The Stig]

May 24, 2010 5:13:45 GMT -5 Elvado said:

May 23, 2010 19:02:03 GMT -5 The Stig said:

The hardcore isolationists in 1940 were actually Republicans. But both parties were pretty mixed in their views. In the 1940 election Wilkie accused FDR of leaving the country unprepared for war, then promptly turned around and accused FDR of secretly plotting to drag the US into the war.

There was also a massive difference between German sympathizers like the elder Kennedy and Lindbergh and appeasers like Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain saved the world at Munich in 1938. If Churchill had been PM in 1938 the British would be speaking German right now.

There it is. Neville Chamberlain saved the world. With that world-view you are a lock for Barry's next big National Security job.

If you look at the actual history, you'll have no choice but to agree. You have to make foreign policy decisions with your brains, not your balls. Sometimes circumstances force you to choose between two very bad choices. In 1938, Chamberlain's choices were appeasement or annihilation.

In 1940, the RAF held of the Luftwaffe by the skin of their teeth. They were literally days from collapse. The Germans had their invasion force in France ready to go, and if the RAF had been beaten they would have gotten across and crushed the tiny British Army easier than they crushed Poland.

In 1938, the RAF was nowhere near the force it was in 1940. This was their main fighter: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Bristol_Bulldog.1.jpg

Meanwhile, the Germans were flying this: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-487-3066-04%2C_Flugzeug_Messerschmitt_Me_109.jpg

Which do you think would win?

Not only did the Luftwaffe have far better fighters, but they had a lot more of them. The Bf-109 was available in numbers and had already seen combat in the Spanish Civil War.

In between 1938 and 1940, the Chamberlain government oversaw a massive surge in modern fighter production, while the Germans largely sat on their hands. This allowed the RAF to dramatically close the gap to the Germans by the Battle of Britain. When the war finally started, the Germans were still flying the same planes they had in 1938, while the RAF had re-equipped with modern Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Yet this new, modern RAF of 1940 barely held off the Germans. The RAF of 1938 would have had no chance. The Germans would have crushed them in a week and conquered Britain within a month. If Churchill had been PM at the time he would have run away to India while the British people suffered the horrors of a German occupation.

From the German perspective, 1938 was the optimal moment to go to war. Hitler knew this, so did Chamberlain. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler didn't go to Munich to get the Sudetenland, he went to Munich to provoke a war. All accounts of those close to him say that he was absolutely furious that Chamberlain prevented him from starting a Europe-wide war right then.

As for Chamberlain, he swallowed his pride and bought an extra year that saved Britain. He didn't get lucky, he knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that Britain was in no shape to go to war in 1938. He knew the French wouldn't support him because they were in worse shape than he was. He also knew that, with some extra time, Britain's war preparations would bear enough fruit to keep the country safe. When the time for war came, he didn't hesitate to join in. But that time wasn't 1938.

The irony is that by 1940, when Chamberlain's efforts of the previous two years were bearing fruit and saving Britain, his time as leader had indeed passed. Churchill was the best man for the job in 1940. As a war leader there have been few better in history. But just because Churchill was the man of the hour in the dark days of 1940 doesn't mean that he would have been the best man for the job in 1938.

So yes, Neville Chamberlain saved the world.

[redskins12820]

May 24, 2010 10:24:00 GMT -5 The Stig said:

May 24, 2010 5:13:45 GMT -5 Elvado said:

There it is. Neville Chamberlain saved the world. With that world-view you are a lock for Barry's next big National Security job.

If you look at the actual history, you'll have no choice but to agree. You have to make foreign policy decisions with your brains, not your balls. Sometimes circumstances force you to choose between two very bad choices. In 1938, Chamberlain's choices were appeasement or annihilation.

In 1940, the RAF held of the Luftwaffe by the skin of their teeth. They were literally days from collapse. The Germans had their invasion force in France ready to go, and if the RAF had been beaten they would have gotten across and crushed the tiny British Army easier than they crushed Poland.

In 1938, the RAF was nowhere near the force it was in 1940. This was their main fighter: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Bristol_Bulldog.1.jpg

Meanwhile, the Germans were flying this: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-487-3066-04%2C_Flugzeug_Messerschmitt_Me_109.jpg

Which do you think would win?

Not only did the Luftwaffe have far better fighters, but they had a lot more of them. The Bf-109 was available in numbers and had already seen combat in the Spanish Civil War.

In between 1938 and 1940, the Chamberlain government oversaw a massive surge in modern fighter production, while the Germans largely sat on their hands. This allowed the RAF to dramatically close the gap to the Germans by the Battle of Britain. When the war finally started, the Germans were still flying the same planes they had in 1938, while the RAF had re-equipped with modern Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Yet this new, modern RAF of 1940 barely held off the Germans. The RAF of 1938 would have had no chance. The Germans would have crushed them in a week and conquered Britain within a month. If Churchill had been PM at the time he would have run away to India while the British people suffered the horrors of a German occupation.

From the German perspective, 1938 was the optimal moment to go to war. Hitler knew this, so did Chamberlain. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler didn't go to Munich to get the Sudetenland, he went to Munich to provoke a war. All accounts of those close to him say that he was absolutely furious that Chamberlain prevented him from starting a Europe-wide war right then.

As for Chamberlain, he swallowed his pride and bought an extra year that saved Britain. He didn't get lucky, he knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that Britain was in no shape to go to war in 1938. He knew the French wouldn't support him because they were in worse shape than he was. He also knew that, with some extra time, Britain's war preparations would bear enough fruit to keep the country safe. When the time for war came, he didn't hesitate to join in. But that time wasn't 1938.

The irony is that by 1940, when Chamberlain's efforts of the previous two years were bearing fruit and saving Britain, his time as leader had indeed passed. Churchill was the best man for the job in 1940. As a war leader there have been few better in history. But just because Churchill was the man of the hour in the dark days of 1940 doesn't mean that he would have been the best man for the job in 1938.

So yes, Neville Chamberlain saved the world.

Thanks for the history...some interesting stuff. One question though. Everyone always talks about how the Battle of Britain just barely prevented the invasion, but wasn't the Royal Navy still absolutely dominant in that area? I know the U-boats were having an effect, but the Navy was still strong enough to prevent a full scale invasion right? Or is it that without the RAF the Navy would have been torn to shreds by the Luftwaffe? You almost never hear about the Royal Navy during this period.

[The Stig]

May 24, 2010 10:29:31 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

Thanks for the history...some interesting stuff. One question though. Everyone always talks about how the Battle of Britain just barely prevented the invasion, but wasn't the Royal Navy still absolutely dominant in that area? I know the U-boats were having an effect, but the Navy was still strong enough to prevent a full scale invasion right? Or is it that without the RAF the Navy would have been torn to shreds by the Luftwaffe? You almost never hear about the Royal Navy during this period.

That's basically it. In the narrow waters of the English Channel, the Navy's battleships would have been sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe if the Luftwaffe had clear air superiority. The sinking of HMS Renown and HMS Repulse in the early stages of the Pacific War are a good example of how land-based aircraft can be a mortal threat to any ships within range. In the English Channel it would have been even worse for the ships, since the Germans would have had no trouble finding them.

It's sort of like the scenario with the US, China, and the Taiwan Straits. The Chinese can't touch the US Navy on the high seas. But if you park an American carrier battle group in the Taiwan Straits in a shooting war, Chinese land-based missiles and aircraft will send the entire American fleet to the bottom of the ocean. The same fate would have befallen the Royal Navy if they'd tried to oppose a German invasion of Britain while the Germans had total air superiority over the Channel.

[DFW HOYA]

Re: Chamberlain, the Munich accord may have bought the British more time, but it also sent a message to the Nazis that the British were soft when push came to shove, which is why Churchill (a fellow Tory) was so critical of Chamberlain's approach.

Re: Calderon, I think he was making some political hay with the Dems over the issue but it doesn't change the situation much. Mexico's conduct with illegal aliens is far more extreme than the US, but he still needs the US' help with the narco-groups that are causing trouble in the core areas of PAN's support in Northern Mexico.

Calderon is also a short-timer owing to Mexico's one term presidential requirement. With the PRI expected to be ascendant in 2012, the U.S. need to pay attention to someone like Enrique Peña Nieto as to where this issue goes in the future.

[The Stig]

The Nazis had already gotten the 'British are soft' long before Munich. The reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 was the only time that Hitler really gambled before the war started. He could have been stopped then, but the British and French didn't respond. Stanley Baldwin was the PM responsible for that.

[Boz]

This is all well and good but even if one agreed 100% with your analysis of why Chamberlain did what he did, it still doesn't change two things:

1. After Munich, Chamberlain remained very resistant to serious rearmament. This would seem to contradict - or at leads be somewhat at odds with - the notion that he only acted in the way that he did because he had no choice. I think its fairly evident that he honestly believed his policy was the right way to go, not the only option he had. History shows he was wrong.

2. It seems like he was probably the last person on the entire island to realize that his appeasement strategy had failed in just about every way to slow down Hitler's ambitions on the continent. Hitler was practically openly mocking Chamberlain to his face before, during and after Munich.


Of course, one of the other lessons is of this period is, you can't negotiate from a position of weakness. I do sympathize with the tough spot Chamberlain was in, no question about that. But he was slow and reluctant to remedy the situation.

[The Stig]

Erm, Chamberlain was pushing rearmament hard, even before Munich. He wasn't criticized for failing to rearm, he was criticized for the way he rearmed. He pushed an emphasis on defensive weapons (like interceptors and radar), while others wanted more offensive weapons (like bombers). Given that defensive weapons saved the day in 1940, I think he made the correct decision.

As for your second point, I don't think Chamberlain was any slower than most to figure out what was going on, there just wasn't anything he could do about it. He wasn't the type to engage in a rhetoric war with Hitler, but he did play a vital role in preparing Britain for the war he knew was coming.

[Bando]

May 23, 2010 11:14:50 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

May 23, 2010 6:17:48 GMT -5 Elvado said:

You really don't get it do you? They can agree all they like. You do not cheer on a foreign leader in the well of the House as he assails the United States of America, period.

Their objections to the bill are fine. They might be right. But you do not cheer while an outsider takes on your own family. End of debate.

Right, support USA USA USA no matter what they do. Got it-have any propaganda posters ready to print? Let them cheer. I can see it now: Churchill speaking to Congress in 1940 and begging for ships and supplies, Democrats cheer him on for standing up to the Nazis, and you get upset and call Democrats backstabbers.

This is Elvado's entire political philosophy in a nutshell.

You realize Mexico is a "hole" because of American drug demand, right? There's a reason all those cartels are down there.

Remember a few years ago when Calderon's election was seen as conservatism yet again triumphing (Calderon's from the conservative party, after all)?

[Boz]

May 24, 2010 13:31:40 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Erm, Chamberlain was pushing rearmament hard, even before Munich. He wasn't criticized for failing to rearm, he was criticized for the way he rearmed. He pushed an emphasis on defensive weapons (like interceptors and radar), while others wanted more offensive weapons (like bombers). Given that defensive weapons saved the day in 1940, I think he made the correct decision.

As for your second point, I don't think Chamberlain was any slower than most to figure out what was going on, there just wasn't anything he could do about it. He wasn't the type to engage in a rhetoric war with Hitler, but he did play a vital role in preparing Britain for the war he knew was coming.

I guess there are different versions of history available.