First, the civil war in Iraq is not the US Civil War. That was fought on US territory between Americans, not in Iraq between Iraqis.

Second, look for historical parallels. The ones that come to mind are the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, wherein the Soviet Union got their asses kicked badly by the Afghanis in a guerilla war.

The same Afghanis that are kicking the asses of the Americans and Nato, by the way. In a guerilla war.

In the same place. Where they kicked the asses of the British.

Going back a ways. Vietnam. Wherein the US got their asses kicked by the Vietnamese. In a guerilla war the US tried to fight without regard to hearts and minds. Just firepower. Wasted 58,000 American lives alone, enough for a lesson, you'd think.

Chamberlain was a success. Sorry, Charlie, I'll repeat that. Chamberlain was a success.

The Germans had been rearming at a furious pace, and had been for some time. They were developing new weapons, techniques and the people to use them. At the time of Chamberlain's visit the British were not ready for a war. Couldn't have fought one, could not have stood off an invasion had the Germans taken France and attacked Britain.

Chamberlain bought peace for Britain for a year, giving the Brits BARELY enough time to start war production and get the population prepared for the sacrifices awaiting them.

If Chamberlain had taken a harder line he would not have been able to back it up militarily, and he would have given the Germans damned near a free pass into England.

Ah, but one would have to have an interest in history.

The only real comparison is Germany and the US in their unwarranted aggressions against defenseless countries. In that Hitler's rhetoric sounds like Bush's. Hitler railed at how the poor Germans were being treated by (take yer pick) and how he had to preemptorily go in and defend them. Again, to not believe that is to deny reality and revise history.

Arf