Archive for the 'Front Page Magazine' Category

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch Saving the West

July 18, 2007

Today at Front Page Magazine, is an article on Robert Spencer and how he came to do his work at Jihad Watch.

“Jihad Will Destroy Us If We Don’t Act Now”
By Ed West
Catholic Herald | July 18, 2007

The following comment was posted there.

Robert Spencer’s example shows how citizens can save civilization when they are called forward.  Harvard didn’t anoint Spencer with a Ph.D. in Saving the West, he just does it.

It may be, and likely is true, as strange as it may seem to Spencer, that he is a key man in saving Western civilization.  This is what gets him up early in the morning posting on Jihad Watch or late at night.  He realizes, and anyone doing what he does can only half realize it, that it does come down to his effort to save the West.

This is how the West was built.  It wasn’t built by people appointed to create the West, it was built by people who just did it.  Gutenberg was not summoned to Rome and told he would change the West by inventing the printing press, he just did it.

If Hitler, Stalin, and Muhammad can appoint themselves to destroy the West, that means you or I can appoint ourselves to stop them and save it.  Don’t sit there and think you can’t make a difference, you are just one person and you don’t have a degree from Yale.

The 19 hijackers didn’t have degrees from Yale.  You don’t need one either.  Let your voice be heard.  Its better to fight now on the internet than fight later with a bayonet.  Saving the West really does depend, gentle reader, on you, right now.  Its your individual effort that is needed to make the difference.


Census Income Inequality Graph

February 23, 2007

Figure 1 – Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Census.

old link, may not work:

Above is the Income Inequality Graph.

The Census page on income inequality is:

Immigration has two effects, a direct effect to increase population and a substitution effect, to substitute immigrants for births.

At a certain point, the population has to stop growing. At that point, the direct effect is zero, and every immigrant substitutes for a birth. This is simple, but key to internalize.

Fertility is below replacement in most groups in the US. This is caused by the substitution effect.The substitution effect doesn’t wait for population to reach its maximum, it starts early and is already causing fertility to be below replacement.

The causal mechanism of low fertility is lack of job security which means young adults can’t get married have kids and stay married. When young adults see that, teens
see it. The reason teens and young adults have angst, crime, drugs, is because they can’t get good jobs, get married and have kids themselves out of high school or in or just out of college.

The only society that is safe to live in is one that is child oriented. The only way a society is child oriented is if young adults have job and economic security to get married out of high school or in college and have kids while their biology tells them to.

When society takes away their job security while their biology says have kids, the mixed message results in crime, drugs, and increasing misery of all kinds.

Immigration takes away job security, that is the whole point of it.

This article originally grew out of a comment on an article by Dick Morris. Dick Morris was born in 1948 and became 21 in 1969. The all time low in income inequality was 1968. Income inequality fell during immigration restriction. After the 1965 Immigration Act it went up.

Morris thinks the reason he could have a family and a great career is he is smart and hard working. The real reason is he was born at the right time in the income inequality graph.
The Latino Revolution
By Dick Morris | February 23, 2007

in Hillary v. McCain, Nader appeals right and left

February 13, 2007

Nader is not the open borders advocate that Hillary and McCain are. Nader is too smart not to see that immigration reduces wages and gives power to employers. So are Hillary and McCain for that matter. The difference is Nader tells the truth. Nader will get votes from right and left.

Where does that leave the race? The anger on the left against Hillary is white hot, but they also want to win. By 2008, we may also face a different world, one where we have gone to war with Iran or they have agreed to real inspections, disclosed their secret sites, given up their Russian anti-ship missile buying program all as part of working together with regional parties to make peace in Iraq and to get Pakistan to give up its nukes.

OK, so war is more likely. McCain is part of big immigration. He has betrayed the Republican voters as much as Bush. Republican voters have shown they will go to a Perot in 1992 and 1996. But Nader is not a Perot.

If the Republicans nominate a Tancredo, Republicans will come out and vote. But the left may also come out for Hillary.

If we are in Iran and Hillary supports it, she may lose the left, but could gain in the center. A Hillary who supports a war in Iran that is ongoing is safe for centrists. In that case, Republicans may vote for Nader instead of McCain.

If we invade Iran and Hillary opposes it, she may gain the left, but will lose the center and she will lose, whether Nader runs or not.

Comments on

Hillary’s Nightmare: Ralph Nader
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann | February 13, 2007

Middle East Myopic Retreat Will Have Higher Losses

January 31, 2007

In the 20th century, the US had a myopic reactive strategy in the first 50 years that lost 500,000 killed. In the second 50 years it switched to an active control strategy that reduced the deaths to 100,000 killed despite nuclear weapons and more advanced conventional technology of death. In rate terms, the first 50 years was 10,000 killed per year, and the second 50 years was 2,000 killed per year.
We currently lose under 1000 killed per year in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is half the rate in the second half of the 20th century. This doesn’t mean we should stay in Iraq, but it means the cost is reasonable if we get a benefit.

If you are going to fight wars in the Middle East, you want to start from Iraq. Its the central land location. It lets us attack Iran, our most likely enemy combatant in a war in the next 5 years. So if we are going to stay in the Middle East, we should stay in Iraq.

So if we are not going to retreat from the Middle East as a whole, we need to stay in Iraq. Invading Iraq in the first place made sense if you wanted the capability to fight Iran or to fight ground wars in the Middle East.

A Nimitz class carrier carries 5700 people or more. One Iranian deployed Russian made Sunburn anti-ship missile could potentially cost almost 6000 lives. This makes a sea invasion of Iran substantially more risky than a ground invasion from Iraq.

In Afghanistan, we depend on supply through others. This makes it less suitable for invading Iran than Iraq. If we had invaded Iran, we would have secure supply under our control to Iraq. That would give us leverage over Pakistan which knows we don’t have reliable supply to our troops in Afghanistan and thus makes those troops hostages to Pakistan. That lets Pakistan support insurgents, which costs us higher losses per month.

Combat phase losses in Iraq were under 200 for US and UK combined. A ground invasion from Iraq into Iran will cost us far fewer deaths than coming by sea and having our ships destroyed by anti-ship missiles with troops on board.

So our best strategy is to hold Iraq. That costs us 70+ deaths per month. Invading Iran may lessen that number killed, and also will lessen killed in Afghanistan as Pakistan loses its hostages in Afghanistan, our troops.

Strategically the way forward for the US in the Middle East is to hold Iraq and then invade Iran if they don’t agree to a deal on our terms. That would be one that showed a drop in our troop losses in Iraq and a complete abandonment by them of their nuclear program and showing us their secret sites and giving us the ability to roam freely to check for secret sites.

==When they attack we lose more than we attack 1st

At the Marine Barracks in Lebanon we lost 241 killed. On 9-11 we lost about 3000 killed.  When we invaded Iraq we had ground phase combat deaths of under 200. That includes the UK losses.

So when we let them pick the time and place of their attac, we lose more.  If we had in Pearl Harbor we get another example.

When we pick the time and place of the attack, and defat them totally as in Iraq, we can do it during the combat phase with low losses.

Now we are faced with Iran.  We can let them feed the insurgency and we lose 70 or 80 or more killed per month.  That comes to 840 or more per year.  We can do a missile strike, and let them retaliate.  We can do a ground invasion.

It seems the low cost choice is a ground invasion.  We should pull our ships out of the Gulf and go in on the ground and clear out their anti-ship missiles.  If we do a bombing raid, we will have to face the risk of their retaliation at a time and place of their choosing.  That may include on civilian targets in the US by organizations with no known return address and with state support to use advanced weapons on US civilian targets like aircraft, nuclear plants, etc.

The targets they pick may be different than al Qaeda. They may pick trains with chemicals that pass through DC near the Capitol and might release enough toxic gas to kill many more than we would lose invading Iran and finishing them off.


“Need more precise language than mess, winning, etc”

Currently 70 Americans or so are killed per month. Some numbers of Iraqis.

So many Iraqis can go to work each day. So many women don’t leave the house for fear.

We need to have a set of such metrics, and do surveys or other means, even internet ones with data analysis to recalibrate them, to get a set of metrics (state data) on the situation in Iraq.

Then we need to determine whether we can change those variables on a short run, intermediate or long run basis. These are really probability estimates, i.e. probabilities on a set of scenarios of the set of state data.

Then we need to estimate the ability of us to change them and then the cost of that. This is also probabilistic.

Then we compare that to alternative uses.

As Newt Gingrich pointed out in an earlier Front Page article, if Iraq was a problem of Iraq only, we would leave. Its only because its part of a wider regional conflict that we might decide to stay, and might then supply a certain level of activities.

Between complete withdrawal and say the current surge, we might find there are lower costs activities, in lives, dollars, troop commitments, etc. that we prefer out of this analysis.

70 lives lost per month is 840 per year. We may decide that this is acceptable in a larger war or mission. In 100 years, losing 840 per year comes to 84,000 lost.


“Myopic Strategy has jumps and higher losses”

In the 20th century our military casualties in war were about 600,000. That comes to 6,000 per year.

A mission of losing 840 per year is thus not unreasonable.

We used force in the 20th century to control powerful forces that we feared might come here. We could have chosen to instead not intervened and seen what happened. In the case of WWI that might have been better, or it might not have been.

We should think of a century control strategy and expenditure. In the 19th century, we also lost 600,000 people in the Civil War. Other countries lost more in the 20th century.

We should combine the losses of Britain and the US in the 20th century and use that as our reference. That takes it will over 1 million. Note Britain had a low population in WWI compared to the US today.

At 1 million deaths per century, we get 10,000 per year. Thus at 840 per year we are below the US UK rate for the 20th century.

We have, however, a higher population. Thus there is no need to panic in Iraq.

Need more precise language than mess, winning, etc – Old Atlantic 1/31/2007 8:20:32 AM

Myopic Strategy has jumps and higher losses – Old Atlantic 1/31/2007 8:30:56 AM

In the 20th century we used a myopic strategy for the first 45 years or so. We would react to large events, WWI and WWII and get huge spikes in deaths. The UK had even bigger spikes as did others.

After WWII we transitioned into a managed strategy. This involved two wars of 50,000 deaths each.

The first 50 years of the 20th century we lost 500,000 killed. The last 50 years we lost 100,000 killed. We also averted a nuclear war.

By switching to active control as opposed to a passive reactive policy, we lowered our deaths from 500,000 for the first 50 years to 100,000 for the second 50 years.

The latter comes to a rate of 200,000 per century or 2,000 per year. We are now losing under 1,000 per year in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, the combined US and UK deaths or even France added may be more appropriate as benchmarks.

The myopic reactive strategy the Senate Democrats want was proven in WWII to result in higher deaths. The actiev control methodology, which was bipartisan at the start, as Gingrich points out, then deteriorated into a 70/30 type commitment. Republicans are 70 percent of it, Democrats 30 percent.

Democrats have used their periods of power to undermine the strategy, e.g. Vietnam withdrawal. That also weakened us to respond to Khomeini in Iran.

We need to recognize that an active control strategy has been shown by history to result in lower deaths and to avoid huge spikes that make up a large part of deaths in 20th century wars.

The current Bush strategy is better than withdrawal from Iraq. We need to increase the size of our military and strengthen our country by stopping immigration and know-how transfer. Our current effort, like Vietnam, is a superior strategy to the Democrat proposal which is myopic and reactive.

==Comments were in response to:
The Real War
By Newt Gingrich | January 31, 2007

Newt Gingrich gave the following testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 23, 2007. — The Editors.
Comments at Front Page Magazine

== Criticisms and Responses

1. Iraq didn’t attack us on 9-11, it was a war of choice. Now its a failure. Neocons, PNAC, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, etc. are responsible for this.


Iraq lets us invade Iran by land instead of by sea. Iran has Russian supplied anti-ship missiles. We could lose 5700 dead from one Nimitz class carrier going down. Iraq gives us position to strike at Iran or Syria.

2. You don’t have the moral right to invade Iraq.

Answer: Iraq had committed numerous acts of war against the US including violations of agreements in the first Iraq war.

3. Iraq was better as it was.

Answer: Saddam was an ongoing threat. The UN wanted to end sanctions and then he would have gotten nukes.

4. You don’t have the right to invade Iran.

Answer: Iran attacked the US in 1979 and has never made peace. Iran has threatened Israel.

5. This is all about Israel.

Answer: The US was attacked by al Qaeda on 9-11. Al Qaeda has had the support of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for years. Islam attacked the West in 633 AD. In the 20th century Turkey genocided Christians under the Young Turks who were supposed to be secular.

6. But we don’t have the right —

Answer to protect ourselves from an onslaught that has been taking place since 633 AD in every century. In no century have the Muslim nations not attacked the West or cleansed Christians. We do have the right to act at a time of our choosing, after they have attacked us many times. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have over decades supported terrorism aimed at us. This is their national and religious policy. We do have a right to respond to it in a way to reduce our deaths.

7. This is colonialism.

Answer: Answer colonialism was a policy of peace. It created peace in lands that had never known them. European colonialism is what ended the Islamic slave economy of Africa. Until European ground troops arrived, slavery didn’t end in Africa. Africa took over 1 million Europeans slave from before the discovery of America until North Africa was occupied by European ground troops in the 19th century.

8. Zbigniew Brzezinski, this is a colonialist policy in a non-colonialist age.

Answer: They attacked us in the United States in the non-colonial era. They attacked in Madrid, London and every day in Paris, Malmo Sweden, Germany, Norway and Denmark, etc. So the non-colonialist age means free strike on the advanced world. The World Bank, IMF, Gates Buffet have funded an increase in 3rd world population that is unsustainable and has resulted in a condition where it results in violence. The cost of the war in Iraq is imposed on us by the universities, by Buffet Gates, etc. by their irresponsible war on equilibrium in the less developed world. They have attacked every means by which these lands deal with choices and consequences, so as to produce an unsustainable population bubble that has no soft landing.

9. But we hate America and Europe and want to see them suffer and be destroyed.

Answer: This is the attitude of the universities, lobbyists, business schools, etc. However, the American people don’t have to help it.

Prison Rape of White Men by Black and Hispanic Men

December 18, 2006

from Vdare’s Sam Francis

There are more men raped in the United States—about 140,000 every year—than women—a mere 90,000. (figures corrected from Am Ren) Most of the male rapes take place , and good many of them are interracial, with blacks and Hispanics searching out and raping white men. [No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons]

The stories the report recounts, described in a 2002 article in the newsletter American Renaissance, are graphic and repellent. “I had no choice but to submit to being Inmate B’s prison wife,” one white convict said. “In all reality, I was his slave.… I determined I’d be better off to willingly have sex with one person, than I would be to face violence and rape by multiple people. The most tragic part to this is that the person I chose to ‘be with’ has AIDS.”


Another white prisoner in Michigan reported that the black inmate who “claimed me as his property” “publicly humiliated and degraded me, making sure all the inmates and guards knew that I was a queen and his property. Within a week he was pimping me out to other inmates at $3.00 a man. This state of existence continued for two months until he sold me for $25.00 to another black male who purchased me to be his wife.” Those are only a couple of the less lurid stories from the Human Rights Watch report.

As the report puts it, “African Americans typically face sexual abuse at the hands of other African Americans, and Hispanics at the hands of other Hispanics. Some inmates told Human Rights Watch that this pattern reflected an inmate rule, one that was strictly enforced: ‘only a black can turn out [rape] a black, and only a chicano can turn out a chicano.’ Breaking this rule by sexually abusing someone of another race or ethnicity, with the exception of a white inmate, could lead to racial or ethnic unrest, as other members of the victim’s group would retaliate against the perpetrator’s group.”

Read it all

See James T. Fulford “Two Words Missing From This Headline”

Death Wish Question by Richard Poe at Front Page Mag

Comments on Poe

search “No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons”

Stop Prison Rape

ACLU argues for rights of black inmate to rape white inmates is in effect what this case was.

Garrison S. Johnson v. California, 03-636

Press Release of ACLU. Sandra Day O’Connor upholds right of black and hispanic inmates to rape whites in prison.

Decision of US Sup Ct.

The victims of this decision were never represented even though the ACLU and possibly Proskauer, Rose, LLP provided pro bono help to Johnson to get his rape shot on white men.

Steven R. Shapiro was for ACLU.


No. 03-636
Garrison S. Johnson, Petitioner
California, et al.
Docketed: October 29, 2003
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (01-56436)
Decision Date: February 25, 2003
Rehearing Denied: July 28, 2003
Questions Presented
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 27 2003 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 28, 2003)
Nov 18 2003 Waiver of right of respondents California, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 3 2003 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2004.
Dec 8 2003 Response Requested . (Due January 7, 2004)
Dec 31 2003 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 28, 2004.
Jan 27 2004 Brief of respondents James Gomez and James Rowland in opposition filed.
Feb 9 2004 Reply of petitioner Garrison S. Johnson filed.
Feb 11 2004 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 27, 2004.
Mar 1 2004 Petition GRANTED.
Mar 15 2004 Extension of time to file the joint appendix and petitioner’s brief on the merits to and including May 17, 2004.
Mar 15 2004 Extension of time within which to file respondents’ brief on the merits to and including July 21, 2004.
May 6 2004 Further extension of time within which to file the joint appendix and petitioner’s brief on the merits to and including June 4, 2004.
May 18 2004 Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
Jun 3 2004 Joint appendix filed.
Jun 3 2004 Brief of petitioner Garrison S. Johnson filed.
Jun 4 2004 Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union,et al. filed.
Jun 4 2004 Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Jun 4 2004 Brief amicus curiae of Former State Corrections Officials filed.
Jun 16 2004 Further extension of time within which to file respondent’s brief on the merits to and including August 6, 2004.
Aug 6 2004 Brief of respondents James Gomez and James Rowland filed.
Aug 6 2004 Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. filed.
Aug 6 2004 Brief amici curiae of Utah, et al. filed.
Aug 18 2004 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Aug 19 2004 CIRCULATED.
Sep 1 2004 SET FOR ARGUMENT Tuesday, November 2, 2004.
Sep 10 2004 Reply of petitioner Garrison S. Johnson filed. (Distributed).
Sep 27 2004 Record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. (1 envelope)
Sep 28 2004 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Sep 28 2004 Record received from U.S.D.C. Central California. (1 box and 1 envelope)
Nov 2 2004 Argued. For petitioner: Bert H. Deixler, Los Angeles, Calif., and for the United States, as amicus curiae, Paul D. Clement, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Frances T. Grunder, Senior Assistant Attorney General, San Francisco, Calif.
Feb 23 2005 Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., took no part in the decision of the case.
Apr 12 2005 Record returned to U.S.C.A.-9th Circuit.
Apr 12 2005 U.S.D.C. record for the Central District of California returned to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S.C.A.-9th Circuit.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Bert H. Deixler Proskauer, Rose, LLP (310) 557-2900
Counsel of Record 2049 Century Park East
Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Party name: Garrison S. Johnson
Attorneys for Respondents:
Frances T. Grunder Office of the Attorney General (415) 703-5723
Counsel of Record 455 Golden Gate Avenue, #11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Party name: California, et al.
Elizabeth Alexander Natl Prison Project of ACLU (202) 393-4930
733 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Party name: American Civil Liberties Union,et al.
Paul D. Clement Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 5614
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: United States
John H. Findley Pacific Legal Foundation (916) 419-7111
3900 Lennane Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95834
Party name: Pacific Legal Foundation
David Thomas Goldberg 99 Hudson Street, 8th Floor (212) 334-8813
New York, NY 10013
Party name: National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, Inc.
Gene C. Schaerr Winston & Strawn LLP (202) 282-5000
1700 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Party name: Utah, et al.
Michael C. Small Mr. (310) 229-1000
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
2029 Century Park East,,
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Party name: Former State Corrections Officials

Baker Hamilton Munich Study Group

November 30, 2006

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.

11 Key Tests for the Baker-Hamilton Report
By Newt Gingrich
Weekly Standard | November 29, 2006

Following Comment:

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

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:

(1) The evacuation will begin on 1st October.

(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.

(3) The conditions governing the evacuation will be laid down in detail by an international commission composed of representatives of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Czechoslovakia.

(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.


“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”.


“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.


“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.


“….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.


“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.


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–


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.”


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.

%d bloggers like this: