Obama: A Modern Neville Chamberlain?

10 Responses to “Obama: A Modern Neville Chamberlain?”

1. DLS says:

   May 15, 2008 at 3:11 pm

   Those of us who have correctly used the Munich analogy for years when discussing appeasement of the USA's and West's enemies or when also discussing the Czech treatment given Israel by the West always has been valid and appropriate.
2. RememberNovember says:

   May 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm

   Reagan was hit with that for wanting to build a bridge with Gorbachev….I think Newt G lambasted him for that.
3. Davebo says:

   May 15, 2008 at 5:15 pm

   Prescott Bush?
4. DLS says:

   May 15, 2008 at 7:24 pm

   “Reagan was hit with that for wanting to build a bridge with Gorbachev….I think Newt G lambasted him for that.”

   1. [minor, side issue] There's a difference between the Soviets and Iran or terrorist groups like Hamas or Hizballah. (Same goes for China and “even” [sic] for Cuba.)

   2. [related to main issue] In a response to Reykjavik, someone was at a press conference and referred explicitly to Reagan as “a useful idiot” for the Soviets.

   3. Given the history of the two parties, the Dems' baggage simply shipwrecks them; the double standard is based on reality. Sorry, Dems. If a Dem were to reach out to the Soviets or to China, it's scandalous, outrageous, treason! If a Republican did it, well, there have to be patriotic reasons for it, naturally, and it's amazing; it's a breakthrough; it's ingenous; it's even revolutionary!

   Wow, just think, George W. Bush opening US doors to Cuba. “The visionary!”
5. neville chamberlain | Information Blog says:

   May 15, 2008 at 7:16 pm

   [...] Obama: A Modern Neville Chamberlain?7 hours ago by JEB KOOGLER Oh no, not the Munich analogy!The Moderate Voice – http://themoderatevoice.com [...]
6. runasim says:

   May 15, 2008 at 9:54 pm

   Great article, pointing to yet another case of language being hijaxked, so that words no longer mean what they actually mean.

   TO NEGOTIATE IS NOT TO APPEASE.

   Appeasement is not talking at all. It's giving up something foolishly, and that can be done without speaking a word.
   .
7. ChrisWWW says:

   May 15, 2008 at 11:44 pm

   1. [minor, side issue] There's a difference between the Soviets and Iran or terrorist groups like Hamas or Hizballah. (Same goes for China and “even” [sic] for Cuba.)

   IIRC, before the end of the Cold War, the Soviets were depicted by our leaders as evil bloodthirsty madmen.

   Remember this?
   

   In your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.
8. neville chamberlain | Inmars says:

   May 15, 2008 at 11:33 pm

   [...] Obama: A Modern Neville Chamberlain?11 hours ago by JEB KOOGLER Oh no, not the Munich analogy!The Moderate Voice – http://themoderatevoice.com [...]
9. neville chamberlain | Jack Fans says:

   May 16, 2008 at 12:03 am

   [...] of Chamberlain’s policies of appeasement to …Untitled – http://www.marktalk.com/blog|||Obama: A Modern Neville Chamberlain?Oh no, not the Munich analogy!The Moderate Voice – http://themoderatevoice.com|||If You’re Going [...]
10. neville chamberlain | shelley says:

    May 16, 2008 at 2:28 am

    [...] screaming appeasement 500 times. Pathetic.Jeremy Beales – http://jeremybeales.wordpress.com|||Obama: A Modern Neville Chamberlain?Oh no, not the Munich analogy!The Moderate Voice – http://themoderatevoice.com|||Who is Neville [...]