PEACE IN OUR TIME

IP: *.dip.t-dialin.net 15.02.03, 17:44
PEACE IN OUR TIME

The Manchester Guardian (1st October, 1938)

[...] Another welcome awaited the Premier [N.
Chamberlain] in Downing Street, which he reached
fifteen minutes later. With difficulty his car moved
forward from Whitehall to No. 10. Mounted policemen
rode fore and aft and a constable kept guard on the
running board of the car.

Every window on the three floors of No. 10 and No. 11
was open and filled with faces. The windows of the
Foreign Office across the way were equally full - all
except one, which was made up with sandbags. Everywhere
were people cheering. One of the women there found no
other words to express her feelings but these, "The man
who gave me back my son."
Mr. and Mrs. Chamberlain stood for a few moments on the
doorstep acknowledging the greeting. Then Mr.
Chamberlain went to a first-floor window and leaned
forward happily smiling on the people.

"My good friends," he said - it took some time to still
the clamour so that he might be heard - "this is the
second time in our history that there has come back
from Germany 'peace with honour.' I believe it is peace
for our time."

Taken from:
www.spartacus.scholnet.co.uk/2WWmunick.htm
Hitler slapped his thighs and the peace-movement in
France proclaimed: "Ne pas mourir pour Gdańsk!"
    • Gość: wacko jacko Re: PEACE IN OUR TIME IP: *.nyc.rr.com 16.02.03, 17:24
      This is anti-war english only forum and your poiner has no chance of
      changing anybody's opinion. They are hellbend peacenicks.

      Below is what Churhill wrote on the subject in his book The Second World War
      in 1948.
      "For the French Government to leave her faithful ally Czechoslovakia to her
      fate was a melancholy lapse from which flowed terrible consequences. Not only
      wise and fair policy, but chivalry, honour, and sympathy for a small
      threatened people made an overwhelming concentration. Great Britain, who would
      certainly have fought if bound by treaty obligations, was nevertheless now
      deeply involved, and it must be recorded with regret that the British
      Government not only acquiesced but encouraged the French Government in a fatal
      course."

      www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmunich.htm
      PS. remulus your link is full of errors and it doesn't work

      • Gość: Duduch Re: PEACE IN OUR TIME IP: *.dip.t-dialin.net 17.02.03, 11:00
        And meanwhile S. Hussein secretly tries to improve his
        long-distance rockets - with the help of German specialists.

        See:

        www.der spiegel.de
        • Gość: chickenShorts Re: PEACE IN OUR TIME IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 17.02.03, 18:44

          Yeah, well done the Krauts! Let's go & bomb the f* Yanks! then the Israel &
          then there will be PEACE!!! Ho ho ho!

          www.nytimes.com/2003/02/17/international/middleeast/17ASSE.html?th
          • glory Re: PEACE IN OUR TIME 18.02.03, 07:10
            Good day ladies!
            Talking about war , hm well , I will tell you this crap joke:
            George.w. Bush and Colinn Powell are talking in hushed tones when an aide
            walks into oval office and asks what they are discoussing "we are making plans
            for next war" Bush says " wow -says the astonished aide "what have you
            decided."we are going to carpetbomb every Iraqi and one dentist in Idaho" Bush
            answers .
            The aide looks confused! "why would you kill the dentist? Powell pats Bush on
            the shoulder "What did I tell you? he grins "Noone ever asks about Iraqis!

            So what you reckon ?Fun , fun fun ? if not is that joke saying somethink ??
            Ps:
            oh , if this joke you will pass off as your own and score you a blow job ,be
            proud and let's us know
















            • Gość: Got Re: PEACE IN OUR TIME IP: *.dip.t-dialin.net 18.02.03, 07:43
              A voice from Sveden in Europe:
              Leader of "Dagens Nyheter", February 18 2003, last sentence:

              > Världen behöver amerikanskt ledarskap, den behöver inte
              amerikansk dominans. <

              My translation: > The world needs [US-]American
              leadership, not [US-]American dominance. <

              • Gość: chickenShorts Re: true reason for... no peace... IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 18.02.03, 18:51

                "... Professor David Harvey, one of the world's most distinguished
                geographers, has provided what may be the first comprehensive explanation of
                the US government's determination to go to war. His analysis suggests that it
                has little to do with Iraq, less to do with weapons of mass destruction and
                nothing to do with helping the oppressed.

                The underlying problem the US confronts is the one which periodically afflicts
                all successful economies: the over-accumulation of capital. Excessive
                production of any good - be it cars or shoes or bananas - means that unless new
                markets can be found, the price of that product falls and profits collapse.
                Just as it was in the early 1930s, the US is suffering from surpluses of
                commodities, manufactured products, manufacturing capacity and money. Just as
                it was then, it is also faced with a surplus of labour, yet the two surpluses,
                as before, cannot be profitably matched. This problem has been developing in
                the US since 1973. It has now tried every available means of solving it and, by
                doing so, maintaining its global dominance. The only remaining, politically
                viable option is war. "

                www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,897766,00.html
                • Gość: Got Re: true reason for... no peace... IP: *.54.69.110.tisdip.tiscali.de 19.02.03, 23:30
                  Three mystery ships with Sadam's weapons of mass destruction on bord?
                  See:
                  > news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379623
                  <
                • Gość: wacko jacko Re: true reason for... no peace... IP: *.nyc.rr.com 20.02.03, 15:11
                  Gibberish, gibberish, gibberish.
                  The true reason for going to war was until today iraq's oil. Trere was another
                  one. Finishing the job daddy had started. Now it is the economy. Any reason
                  mascarades as a true one. The true reason is widely dismissed as a false one.
                  I'll ask my plumber how to save my lawn. I'll ask my gardener how to paint my
                  house.
                  • Gość: chickenShorts Re: true reason for... no peace... IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 20.02.03, 16:19
                    ...and what will you ask your shrink, when you see him next? How Mr Lay is?
                    • Gość: wacko jacko Re: true reason for... no peace... IP: *.nyc.rr.com 20.02.03, 17:36
                      What Mr. Lay has to do with my, allegedly, shrink? At least I am consistant.
                      You, my friend are all over the field. Make your mind. What is the real reason
                      or how many real reasons there are? Let's turn the table. What is the real
                      reason for France to oppose?
                      I'll ask my shrink how to fix my faucet in my bathroom.
                      • chickenshorts Re: true reason for... no peace... 20.02.03, 18:02
                        Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

                        > What is the real
                        > reason for France to oppose?<

                        Christian commitment to "love thy neighbour as thou loveth thyself"?...
                        No?

                        Well, maybe... a lot of French euros invested there + loans for Saddam still
                        to be paid back... or, as somebody suggested earlier, an occasion for a frog to
                        raise a leg, "...kiedy konie kuja"?

                        Take your pick, I don't mind... I am not French, nor speaking for
                        France...but whatever their reason is, the resulting opposition is a good thing!

                        BTW, do you have problem with the above analysis of prof. Harvey?

                        • Gość: Got Re: true reason for... no peace... IP: *.dip.t-dialin.net 20.02.03, 21:55
                          An oppositional voice from Germany in the US - and the
                          Government foams. Indeed, no longer "Gleichschritt"
                          (marching in step) in German polity? That´s new! For me:
                          a glimmer of hope.

                          The Washington Post
                          >www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32835-2003Feb19.html<

                          Schroeder Doesn't Speak for All Germans

                          By Angela Merkel

                          Thursday, February 20, 2003; Page A39

                          [...]
                          Europe is, on the one hand, assuming new responsibilities
                          around the world, whether in Kosovo or Afghanistan. On
                          the other hand, it is divided, maybe even deeply split.
                          Thus, for example, aid to Turkey, our partner in the
                          alliance, is blocked for days in the NATO Council by
                          France, Belgium and Germany, a situation that undermines
                          the very basis of NATO's legitimacy. The most important
                          lesson of German politics
                        • Gość: wacko jacko Re: true reason for... no peace... IP: *.nyc.rr.com 21.02.03, 01:52
                          Well, well, well. Finally something coherent.
                          I can buy that. What do you think about french megalomania?
                          In reality the only place on this face of the Earth , where France is treated
                          as a superpower is UN Security Council. Outside that body it's just one of
                          many countries.

                          In fact, I do strongly disagree with prof. Harvey. He should stick to
                          geography and leave economics to others. In 1930 USA was in deep depression.
                          Unemployment was running at 23%. There was no surplus capital. New Deal was a
                          government program focused on employing vast number if people. It was entirely
                          financed by borrowed money. There is no analogy.
    • gabrielacasey Re: PEACE IN OUR TIME 21.02.03, 01:10
    • gabrielacasey Re: PEACE IN OUR TIME 21.02.03, 01:16
      ARE YOU O.K? Can I help you? I know a very good psychiatrist in Queen's Medical
      Centre (they also specialise in Gulf Syndrome). It has to be a mental illness:
      this is a year 2003, not 1938 !!!
      • Gość: Got Re: PEACE IN OUR TIME IP: *.dip.t-dialin.net 21.02.03, 07:57
        Learning by studying history? Too much strenuous - at
        least for you?
        • remulus Re: PEACE IN OUR TIME 21.02.03, 12:56
          www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38121-2003Feb20.html
          `Europe did not take to the streets against America last
          weekend; only Western Europe did. The streets of Eastern
          Europe were silent. The Poles, and their Eastern European
          neighbors, have an immediate personal experience of life
          under tyranny
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja