The Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group is going to recommend that we give up our bases in Iraq that we paid 3000 lives for without using them to invade Iran. This is a blunder of not understanding what the fight is. Gingrich makes this point in the article linked to below.
James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton understand process not substance. This is a good definition of “realist”. Realists give themselves credit for the fall of the USSR. But it was the lack of a price system and profit accounting that did it in.
It was the realists who let the USSR get the bomb. The realists allowed Hitler to rise to power. The realists undid the positives in the League of Nation. The realists wanted to live with fascism, communism, and now radical Islam. Its the realists who make us put the radical in front of Islam and make us say that Islam is the religion of peace. If Islam is what Saudi judges say it is, then what we have to call radical Islam is their version of Islam.
What they are proposing is the 1938 Munich Pact with the devil updated to the modern equivalents. They are selling us out. If you are realistic, you know, that’s what realists do.
It was the realists who arranged the 1975 helicopter airlift out of Saigon. Now they are proposing it for Baghdad. In 1975, they gave South Vietnam to North Vietnamese Hard Core Communists.
Now they give Iraq to Iran. These are hard core Islamofascists. They are also letting Iran develop nuclear weapons. They are letting Pakistan keep its.
The 27 pages linking Saudi Arabia to 9-11 were kept from the public by the realists. Saudi Arabia shows its gratitude to the Baker Botts law firm, Carlyle Group, Cohen Group perhaps, and others.
LA Times summary of the redacted 27 pages :
“ Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say
By Josh Meyer
The Los Angeles Times
Saturday 02 August 2003″
The 28 pages including the 27 blank pages are here. Hamilton and Kean said they couldn’t find any links of financing 9-11 to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Evidently they read the blank pages public version instead of the actual report. For the Pakistan links they needed to read Christina Lamb columns in the London Times.
Bush’s first Munich Pact was with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan after 9-11. His others include further ones with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as well as China, India Nuclear Deal, and now with Iran.
Date: 11/29/2006 8:59:48 AM
Name: Old Atlantic
Subject: Re 27 Pages on Saudi Arabia and 9-11, etc.
Comment: Congress did a report in 2003 with 27 pages that couldn’t be made public. The LA Times published a summary. Search on Saudi Arabia 9-11 and go to truthout.org.
After 9-11, Bush needed to tell the truth of Saudi and Pakistan links to terrorists to the American people. When America is attacked, the president has to level with the American people and tell them the truth.
Instead, Bush protected his Saudi friends and did a torture pact with Prince Bandar. At that point, he and we had lost the war.
In Nov 2001, Bush let Pakistan evacuate its generals from Kunduz in Afghanistan where they were advising the Taliban against us.
Because Bush did these things, he didn’t go after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Those are the two main enemy homelands against us, along with Iran.
In WWII we island hopped to the Japanese mainland. We didn’t stop to nation build the islands. Nor did we nation build North Africa in 1942 after we invaded there. We went to Germany and Japan the two main enemy homelands. Unfortunately, we didn’t finish off the USSR then. That really is the source of many of our problems today.
Now we need to do a ground invasion of Iran and surround Pakistan and blockade it. We must make them give up their nukes, abolish religious law, courts, police, retire the judges, and end the call to prayers.The same must be done in Iran.
If Saudi Arabia does this on its own, it can avoid occupation.
We must strike North Korea now and destroy what we can of their nuclear facilities, missiles, sub yards, etc. South Korea has failed to support us even in minimal acts. We have an obligation to Japan, ourselves, and the region.
We must stop Chinese grad students coming here and displacing Americans in physics Ph.D. programs and inspect containers until the ships back up to China. We must end know-how transfer to China. Until we do that, China thinks it has bought our leaders, and its right.
==Background on Munich 1938
====Munich Pact Text
Agreement concluded at Munich, September 29, 1938, between Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy
GERMANY, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, taking into consideration the agreement, which has been already reached in principle for the cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory, have agreed on the following terms and conditions governing the said cession and the measures consequent thereon, and by this agreement they each hold themselves responsible for the steps necessary to secure its fulfilment:
(2) The United Kingdom, France and Italy agree that the evacuation of the territory shall be completed by the 10th October, without any existing installations having been destroyed, and that the Czechoslovak Government will be held responsible for carrying out the evacuation without damage to the said installations.
(4) The occupation by stages of the predominantly German territory by German troops will begin on 1st October. The four territories marked on the attached map will be occupied by German troops in the following order:
The territory marked No. I on the 1st and 2nd of October; the territory marked No. II on the 2nd and 3rd of October; the territory marked No. III on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of October; the territory marked No. IV on the 6th and 7th of October. The remaining territory of preponderantly German character will be ascertained by the aforesaid international commission forthwith and be occupied by German troops by the 10th of October.
(5) The international commission referred to in paragraph 3 will determine the territories in which a plebiscite is to be held. These territories will be occupied by international bodies until the plebiscite has been completed. The same commission will fix the conditions in which the plebiscite is to be held, taking as a basis the conditions of the Saar plebiscite. The commission will also fix a date, not later than the end of November, on which the plebiscite will be held.
(6) The final determination of the frontiers will be carried out by the international commission. The commission will also be entitled to recommend to the four Powers, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, in certain exceptional cases, minor modifications in the strictly ethnographical determination of the zones which are to be transferred without plebiscite.
(7) There will be a right of option into and out of the transferred territories, the option to be exercised within six months from the date of this agreement. A German-Czechoslovak commission shall determine the details of the option, consider ways of facilitating the transfer of population and settle questions of principle arising out of the said transfer.
(8) The Czechoslovak Government will within a period of four weeks from the date of this agreement release from their military and police forces any Sudeten Germans who may wish to be released, and the Czechoslovak Government will within the same period release Sudeten German prisoners who are serving terms of imprisonment for political offences.
Munich, September 29, 1938.
from Avalon Project
The British Parliamentary Debate on the Munich Agreement
From Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol.339 (1938), cols 30, 31-34, 39, 40, 47-52, 54, 56-58, 62-63, 150-154, 162, 360-369, 373, 548-553.
DUFF COOPER, HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 3, 1938.
“I besought my colleagues not to see this problem always in terms of Czechoslovakia, not to review it always from the difficult strategic position of that small country, but rather to say to themselves, “A moment may come when, owing to the invasion of Czechoslovakia, a European war will begin, and when that moment comes we must take part in that war, we cannot keep out of it, and there is no doubt upon which side we shall fight. Let the world know that and it will give those who are prepared to disturb the peace reason to hold their hand.”
We must not see this as a war about Iraq. As Gingrich wrote, and many others, its a wider war. In fact, the moment of fighting the wider war began no later than Sep 11, 2001.
It seems these things happen in September. Munich Pact, invasion of Poland 1939, etc.
” It was, however, a guarded statement. It was a statement to the effect that if there were such a war it would be unwise for anybody to count upon the possibility of our staying out.
That is not the language which the dictators understand. Together with new methods and a new morality they have introduced also a new vocabulary into Europe. They have discarded the old diplomatic methods of correspondence….”
So have the Islamic Republics and Kingdoms. They don’t understand the “old diplomatic methods of correspondence”.
PRIME MINISTER NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 3, 1938.
“In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day was the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war somehow must be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the Concessions that were made….
We were already at war on September 11, 2001. We were at war with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the others who view the world as they do, a fight to the death between Islamic Republics and Kingdoms and the West.
“I believe there are many who will feel with me that such a declaration, signed by the German Chancellor and myself, is something more than a pious expression of opinion. ”
This is a false view with Islamic Republics and Kingdoms. There is no peace as we understand it with them.
“It is to such tasks–the winning back of confidence, the gradual removal of hostility between nations until they feel that they can safely discard their weapons, one by one, that I would wish to devote what energy and time may be left to me before I hand over my office to younger men.”
Then as now, younger men must fight and die in the millions because we can’t act now. The time to fight is now. They are at war with us, and have been for decades. In fact, since 622 AD.
CLEMENT ATTLEE, HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 3, 1938.
“We all feel relief that war has not come this time.”You were at war then, and we already are at war now.
“We have seen today a gallant, civilised and democratic people betrayed and handed over to a ruthless despotism. We have seen something more. We have seen the cause of democracy, which is, in our view, the cause of civilisation and humanity, receive a terrible defeat.”
Old Atlantic: Saigon 1975. The Iraq and Afghan Constitutions making them Islamic Republics. After 9-11, letting Saudi Arabia and Pakistan get away with it.
“The events of these last few days constitute one of the greatest diplomatic defeats that this country and France have ever sustained. There can be no doubt that it is a tremendous victory for Herr Hitler. Without firing a shot, by the mere display of military force, he has achieved a dominating position in Europe which Germany failed to win after four years of war. He has overturned the balance of power in Europe. He has destroyed the last fortress of democracy in Eastern Europe which stood in the way of his ambition. He has opened his way to the food, the oil and the resources which he requires in order to consolidate his military power, and he has successfully defeated and reduced to impotence the forces that might have stood against the rule of violence.”
Old Atlantic: This is exactly what we are doing in the Middle East, for decades. We were doing this in the 1980’s in Pakistan. We let Pakistan do its nuclear test in 1998. We are letting Pakistan put nukes on missiles on subs. There will be a flotilla of them off our coasts. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, North Korea, etc. will have them.
“I want to turn now to the cause of the crisis which we have undergone. The cause was not the existence of minorities in Czechoslovakia; it was not that the position of the Sudeten Germans had become intolerable. It was not the wonderful principle of self-determination. It was because Herr Hitler had decided that the time was ripe for another step forward in his design to dominate Europe. ”
Old Atlantic: That is what is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan. And why we have to go for the main enemy homelands, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
” It was quite a minor matter, and I fear that the Prime Minister is deceived if he thinks that the cause of this trouble has been the woes of the Sudeten Germans. I say that the question of the Sudeten Germans has been used as a counter in the game of politics, and in other conditions Herr Hitler might just as well have used the people of Memel, the people of South Denmark, the people in the Trentino or the Germans in South Tyrol….”
“the people of South Denmark” “aye there’s the rub”.
“The history of the last seven years is the background of this crisis, and the first point I must make to the Government is this. This crisis did not come unexpectedly. It was obvious to any intelligent student of foreign affairs that this attack would Come.”
“Verily I say unto you.”
He doesn’t advocate following but gives it as example of defeatism:
“You had better now make the best terms you can with Germany, enter her political orbit and give her anything to escape before the wrath comes upon you.” Realists then and now. Realists: The Art of the Defeat and Surrender.
“I heard a suggestion from the benches opposite. “What about the U.S.S.R.?” Busy with assassinations then and now. Now they do them in London with nuclear materials.
“When the National Government overthrew the whole policy of collective security and abandoned it and the League, we told this House over and over again that we were entering on a very dangerous course. We realised that we were back in 1914 with all its dangers, and we knew that sooner or later a challenge would come to this country; and that is what has happened. The real pith of it is that, having decided to leave the League system which we practised and in which we believed, and to embark on a policy of alliances and power politics, instead of strengthening the people whose natural interests were with ours, we have had nothing but constant flirtations with this and that dictator. The Prime Minister has been the dupe of the dictators, and I say that to-day we are in a dangerous position.”
Old Atlantic: Seems like then they said they were back in 1914. Now we say we are back in 1938. The more things change, the more our appeasing leaders stay the same.
SIR SAMUEL HOARE, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 3, 1938.
“….A week ago we were on the verge of a terrible abyss. The Hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who has just sat down, seemed to have forgotten the position in which we were then placed. The speech that he has just made seemed to take little account of the fact that a few days ago we were within a hair’s breadth of the greatest catastrophe that the world has ever seen. Did we shrink from it in fear, or did we feel that there was some hope still of finding a path round it to more solid ground? I am fully aware that there are some hon. Members, and some people in the Country, who believe that no peace is possible in Europe as long as the dictatorships exist, who hold, quite sincerely, the view–I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does–that as long as the dictatorships exist, war is inevitable, and that it may be better to have war now, when we have an issue that may be supposed to appeal to the whole world, rather than to put it off to some future date when our position may be more difficult and dangerous. …
The conclusion of such a view is to me so appalling that I could not accept it if I thought there was still some glimmer of hope that the catastrophe might yet be averted.”
Old Atlantic: A seat for him at the Hamilton Kean 9-11 Commission, Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group, giving nukes to Russia, China, Pakistan, India, etc. This man is obviously a realist.
“The Prime Minister acted not alone as the head of the Government of which I am a member. He acted rather as the spokesman of the millions of men and women from one end of the world to the other who were determined that we should still try to keep a controlling hand upon the course of events and avoid an appalling calamity that would undoubtedly have ended in the extinction of civilisation as we have known it. . .”
How the realists use the fear of war to lead us into greater war and greater defeat.
“extinction of civilisation as we have known it.”
Old Atlantic: That is the self proclaimed goal of Islam from 622 AD to the present. That is the real Islam.
“. I go further, and I say that if we had made an ultimatum in the days immediately before the Nuremberg speech Europe would to-day have been plunged into a world war….”
Old Atlantic: We already are in a world war with the Islamic world.
“The Soviet Ambassador was received again, quite recently, at the Foreign Office, after his return to London. So much for the hon. Member’s question about our attitude towards the Soviet Republic.”
Old Atlantic: Let them sell them nukes. Let them sell them missiles. Let them undermine our negotiations with NoKo and Iran. Let them sell them night vision.
“I say with all deliberation that, when once Germany rearmed and became powerful, and when once the Anschluss took place, the strategic frontier of the republic was turned.”
Old Atlantic: Pakistan nuclear test 1998. North Korea nuclear test 2006. Iran will complete its nuclear cycle development in 2007. It will have 60,000 centrifuges. We are told it won’t be 100,000. We are told it won’t have nukes for 5 years. We are told its too late to do anything about North Korea and Pakistan’s nukes, that we should have done something 5 years ago.
“The Sudeten Germans looked to reunion with the Reich. ”
Old Atlantic: All Muslims in all lands look to be reunited in the Ummah. Muslim lands are the House of Peace. Non-Muslim lands are the House of War.
“When the time comes for the verdict to be given upon the Prime Minister’s conduct,
Old Atlantic: That verdict is in. He is guilty of appeasement. Why can’t Bush, Hamilton Kean 9-11 Commission, Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group see that?
let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that none of us here fears that verdict. I believe that the criticisms to which we have listened in the House to-day very little represent the great body of feeling. I believe the great body of our fellow-citizens not only in this country but in the Dominions and in the whole Empire, are grateful to the Prime Minister for the efforts that he has made. They are grateful to the Prime Minister for having persistently sustained the policy of peace and mediation. They do not take the view that war is inevitable. They believe that under his wise guidance we may succeed in creating a new Europe in which men and women can go about their business in peace and security.”
Old Atlantic: We already are at war. We already are being subjected to defeat by immigration. We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of island hopping to the main enemy homelands, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We are letting them have nukes. They will be on missiles on subs off our coasts. They are going to use them on us, because they believe in Unilateral Assured Jihad, not Mutual Assured Destruction. The only destruction they assure is ours.
WINSTON CHURCHILL, HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 5, 1938.
“Having thus fortified myself by the example of others, I will proceed to emulate them. I will, therefore, begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing. I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and that France has suffered even more than we have.
VISCOUNTESS ASTOR: Nonsense.
MR. CHURCHILL: When the Noble Lady cries “Nonsense,” she could not have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Sir John Simon] admit in his illuminating and comprehensive speech just now that Herr Hitler had gained in this particular leap forward in substance all he set out to gain. The utmost my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been able to secure by all his immense exertions, by all the great efforts and mobilisation which took place in this country, and by all the anguish and strain through which we have passed in this country, the utmost he has been able to gain–[HON. MEMBERS: “Is peace.”]. I thought I might be allowed to make that point in its due place, and I propose to deal with it. The utmost he has been able to gain for Czechoslovakia and in the matters which were in dispute has been that the German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.”
Old Atlantic: “Course by Course”. That is the fallacy of thinking of Iraq and Afghanistan as separate wars. Just like thinking ofCzechoslovakia by itself was a fallacy in 1938.
“We really must not waste time, after all this long Debate, upon the difference between the positions reached at Berchtesgaden, at Godesberg and at Munich. They can be very simply epitomised, if the House will permit me to vary the metaphor. £1 was demanded at the pistol’s point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol’s point. Finally, the dictator consented to take £1 17s. 6d. and the rest in promises of good will for the future.”
Old Atlantic: This is what realists always say, they got the best deal that could be had. The best deal that can be had is a nuclear North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, etc. with subs off our coasts.
“There never can be any absolute certainty that there will be a fight if one side is determined that it will give way completely.”
Old Atlantic: Hamilton Kean after 9-11 attack by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan support, Baker Hamilton in the face of Iran’s nuclear program. They want to give up our bases in Iraq that we need for a ground invasion of Iran. Our soldiers must fight for the same ground twice, but under worse conditions.
“All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness. . . . No one has a right to say that the plebiscite which is to be taken in areas under Saar conditions, and the clean-cut of the 50 per cent. areas-that those two operations together amount in the slightest degree to a verdict of self-determination. It is a fraud and a farce to invoke that name….”
We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude which has befallen Great Britain and France. Do not let us blind ourselves to that. It must now be accepted that all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make the best terms they can with the triumphant Nazi Power. The system of alliances in Central Europe upon which France has relied for her safety has been swept away, and I can see no means by which it can be reconstituted. The road down the Danube Valley to the Black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics–not only power military politics but power economic politics–radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot. If you wish to survey the havoc of the foreign policy of Britain and France, look at what is happening and is recorded each day in the columns of the “Times…
We are talking about countries which are a long way off and of which, as the Prime Minister might say, we know nothing. [Interruption.] The noble Lady says that that very harmless allusion is–
VISCOUNTESS ASTOR: Rude.
MR. CHURCHILL: She must very recently have been receiving her finishing course in manners. What will be the position, I want to know, of France and England this year and the year afterwards? What will be the position of that Western front of which we are in full authority the guarantors? The German army at the present time is more numerous than that of France, though not nearly so matured or perfected. Next year it will grow much larger, and its maturity will be more complete.
(Old Atlantic: Russia and China arm Iran and Syria. North Korea and Iran develop nukes. Pakistan has a new nuclear reactor under way to build hundreds of smaller nukes that will fit on missiles on subs. They have a subyard the French built for them.)
Relieved from all anxiety in the East, and having secured resources which will greatly diminish, if not entirely remove, the deterrent of a naval blockade, the rulers of Nazi Germany will have a free choice open to them in what direction they will turn their eyes. If the Nazi dictator should choose to look westward, as he may, bitterly will France and England regret the loss of that fine army of ancient Bohemia which Was estimated last week to require not fewer than 30 German divisions for its destruction.
Can we blind ourselves to the great change which has taken place in the military situation, and to the dangers we have to meet?.
(Old Atlantic: Yes then, Yes now. There are always realists for that job.)
This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”
PRIME MINISTER CHAMBERLAIN, HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 5, 1938
As regards future policy, it seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that any sort of friendly relation, or possible relations, shall I say, with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe and the gradual destruction of democracies. Of course, on that hypothesis, war has got to come, and that is the view–a perfectly intelligible view–of a certain number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House….
If that is hon. Members’ conviction, there is no future hope for civilisation or for any of the things that make life worth living. Does the experience of the Great War and of the years that followed it give us reasonable hope that if some new war started that would end war any more than the last one did? No. I do not believe that war is inevitable. Someone put into my hand a remark made by the great Pitt about 1787, when he said:
- To suppose that any nation can be unalterably the enemy of another is weak and childish and has its foundations neither in the experience of nations not in the history of man.
(Old Atlantic: The war with Buonaparte lasted until 1815 and he crowned himself Emperor along the way. Ahmadinejad is close to crowing himself the 12th Imam or perhaps the Mahdi.)
It seems to me that the strongest argument against the inevitability of war is to be found in something that everyone has recognized in every part of the House. That is the universal aversion from war of the people, their hatred of the notion of starting to kill one another again…. (Old Atlantic: Iran and Saudi Arabia use suicide bombers. Intifada is a method of war for them. 9-11 was a method of war.)
What is the alternative to this bleak and barren policy of the inevitability of war? In my view it is that we should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with dictators, and of talks man to man on the basis that each, while maintaining his own ideas of the internal government of his country, is willing to allow that other systems may suit better other peoples. The party opposite surely have the same idea in mind even if they put it in a different way.
(Old Atlantic: They want our destruction. They wanted it then and now. So does China.)
They want a world conference. Well, I have had some experiences of conferences, and one thing I do feel certain of is that it better to have no conference at all than a conference which is a failure.
(A surrender is a failure. Duping yourself is a failure.)
The corollary to that is that before you enter a conference you must have laid out very clearly the lines on which you are going to proceed, if you are at least to have in front of you’re a reasonable prospect that you may obtain success. I am not saying that a conference would not have its place in due course. But I say it is no use to call a conference of the world, including these totalitarian Powers, until you are sure they are going to attend, and not only that they are going to attend, but that they are going to attend with the intention of aiding you in the policy on which you have set your heart.
(Old Atlantic: Iran has made that clear: our destruction. Saudi Arabia made that clear in financing terror: our destruction. Pakistan has made that clear: building the Muslim atomic bomb, a term they invented for it.)
I am told that the policy which I have tried to describe is inconsistent with the continuance, and much more inconsistent with the acceleration of our present programme of arms.
(Old Atlantic: Clinton reduced the military from 1991 levels. In 1988 Bush Sr. made his no new taxes pledge but broke it and lost the 1992 election. He had to break it, we were at war. But Clinton reduced the military, realizing that Bush Sr had lost in 1992 because he kept the funds we needed for defense. Bush Jr. after 9-11 didn’t rebuild the military to 1991 levels and beyond. Instead he was mindful of his father’s defeat in 1992 and his own tax cut pledge and didn’t rebuild the military after 9-11. We have had over 14 years of betrayal this time. )
I am asked how I can reconcile an appeal to the country to support the continuance of this programme with the words which I used when I came back from Munich the other day and spoke of my belief that we might have peace in our time. I hope hon. Members will not be disposed to read into words used in a moment of some emotion, after a long and exhausting day, after I had driven through miles of excited, enthusiastic, cheering people–I hope they will not read into those words more than they were intended to convey.
(Old Atlantic: What were they intended to convey, except what he really thought?)
I do indeed believe that we may yet secure peace for our time, but I never meant to suggest that we should do that by disarmament, until we can induce others to disarm too.
(Old Atlantic: We don’t let Iran and North Korea get nukes while we talk peace.)
Our past experience has shown us only too clearly that weakness in armed strength means weakness in diplomacy,
(We didn’t rearm after 9-11, so Iran and North Korea and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia ignore us now.)
and if we want to secure a lasting peace, I realise that diplomacy cannot be effective unless the Consciousness exists, not here alone, but elsewhere, that behind the diplomacy is the strength to give effect ……..
I cannot help feeling that if, after all, war had come upon us, the people of this Country would have lost their spiritual faith altogether.
(Old Atlantic: This is what the Hamilton Kean 9-11 Commission felt. They lied about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s links to 9-11. This is what the Baker Hamilton Commission think. The reason they think this is because at bottom they despise us.)
As it turned out the other way, I think we have all seen something like a new spiritual revival,
(Old Atlantic: Actually they were already at war with the totalitarians, they just couldn’t admit it. They duped themselves.)
and I know that everywhere there is a strong desire among the people to record their readiness to serve their Country, where-ever or however their services could be most useful. I would like to take advantage of that strong feeling if it is possible, and although I must frankly say that at this moment I do not myself clearly see my way to any particular scheme, yet I want also to say that I am ready to consider any suggestion that may be made to me, in a very sympathetic spirit.
(Ground invasion of Iran. Abolish religious courts, law, police, dress, and call to prayers. Retire the judges. Surround Pakistan and make them denuke, desub, demissile, deLaden and do the same. Abolish the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan and Iraq and fight for our values. If Saudi Arabia does the same, they can avoid occupation. Strike at North Korea now and hit their missiles, naval yards, nuclear plants, airpower, etc. Stop Chinese and Indian grad students in physics coming here and getting our stealth and night vision tech and selling it to the insurgents. Start inspecting containers from China until the ships stack up across the Pacific. Be loyal to the American people. Stop immigration, all of it. You don’t teach others our technology in time of war, you teach our own young people. You don’t give them our high tech to use against our troops. That isn’t supporting our troops, its betraying them. Even Chamberlin didn’t do that in 1938.)
Finally, I would like to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday in his great speech. Our policy of appeasement
(Old Atlantic: After 9-11, we had a policy of appeasement of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. We hoped they would stop supporting the terrorism that attacked us. In fact, Pakistan says admit the Taliban have won. In fact, Saudi Arabia is funding the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, Iran is building nukes with support from Russia and China. In fact, we gave our nuclear technology to India, which immediately sold it to China.)
does not mean that we are going to seek new friends at the expense of old ones, or, in-deed, at the expense of any other nations at all. I do not think that at any time there has been a more complete identity of views between the French Government and ourselves than there is at the present time. Their objective is the same as ours–to obtain the collaboration of all nations, not excluding the totalitarian States, in building up a lasting peace for Europe. That seems to me to be a policy which would answer my hon. Friends’ appeal, a policy which should command the support of all who believe in the power of human will to control human destiny. If we cannot here this afternoon emulate the patriotic unanimity of the French Chamber, this House can by a decisive majority show its approval of the Government’s determination to pursue it.
[The vote which followed supported the government 369 to 150.]
Source: Munich: Blunder, Plot, or Tragic Necessity? edited with and introduction by Dwight E. Lee (Lexington, MA; D.C. Heath and Company, 1970), pp. 1-12 This article represents hypotheses, speculation or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.