And the difference between Chamberlain and Carter is that one sovereign nation was embarking on an adventure to take over another another sovereign nation. Carter is protesting for the nation being threatened with aggression.
This is more like Chamberlain and Blair. Let's find a difference between them.
Chamberlain was a Brit who was siding with the nation who was aggressing upon the other nation. Blair is - - -
Woops, no difference. OK.
Chamberlain was appeasing an aggressor who was saying that he just wanted to take over this last nation and he would be done. That aggressor was saying that the other nation was threatening his people.
Blair is - - - -
Damn!! No difference yet. I guess we could substitute Blair, not Carter, for Chamberlain.
Arf (waiting for folks to say "That's dumb!" They don't understand the present, let alone history.)
Current Events » in reply to Re: Carter's article
Yep. And read "Blair", not "Chamberlain".
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Carter demonstrates just why he is considered an idiot
- Weakness, Vacillation and Division
- Re: Carter's article
- So was Chamberlain's response to Hitler ;-) (n/t) (n/t)
- Chamberlain's response to Hitler was "thoughtful, sensible and justified"? (n/t)
- Yep. And read "Blair", not "Chamberlain".
- So was Chamberlain's response to Hitler ;-) (n/t) (n/t)
- I don't think I've heard that assertion about Carter before, nor do I see how this article would support such a conclusion n/t (n/t)