Nevil Chamberlin Vs General Patton

Originally posted by TKainZero
Not everything is a huge conspiricy

and not every event is orcrustated by evil-powerful-men...

I'm just implying that there are very powerful forces working behind the scenes in the Western world and especially the Anglo-Saxon world. Whether they are part of a huge conspiracy and how powerful exactly they are, that's irrelevant.

Originally posted by TKainZero
1. please give me at least a paragraph of what you WOULD say to troops pre-battle.

???

Originally posted by TKainZero
2. Tell me what you would do from 09/12/01 foreward 10 years... outlined...

If it were up to me, I would :

*) Restore the national sovereignty of Western nations. This includes the abolition of NATO, UN and EU as well as a severe limitation of immigration. Foreigners will be allowed to live in the West with limited civil rights only.

*) Stay out of the Middle East altogether. Give Palestine back to the Palestinians and give the Jews their own land in Siberia, where they can't do any harm to others.

*) Abolish so-called "democracies" and replace them by technocracies/meritocracies. Those who currently run our pseudo-democracies from behind the scenes would pay for their crimes.

*) Abolish (in the Western world) Judaism, Christianity, Islam as well as the separation of church and state. The masses should be educated with traditional values as examplified by the ancient Spartans, the Vikings of the Japanese samurai. Liberal immorallity and decadence must be fought at all costs.

*) Replace the capitalist economy by a corporatist economy.

*) Attempt to forge an alliance with nations like China, Russia, Venezuela and Iran.

*) Provide free higher education for all, under the condition that the subjects do not fail at their exams.

*) Demand mandatory military and labor service for all those who want to obtain full citizenship, regardless of social background.

*) Provide numerous incentives for mothers staying home and raising their children, without limiting women's access to higher education.

etc.

Originally posted by Havalon
I don't think Col Collins was being 'Imperialistic' when he addressed his troops, he was looking to 'liberate' not 'conquer'. An imperialist would have said it all quite differently I assure you!

All imperialists call themselves liberators and all terrorists call themselves freedom fighters. That's the nature of propaganda.

reply to post by OutoftheBoxthinker


Sounds to me like you have been reading a book with almost exactly that same rhetoric.

The book in question was written by an Austrian painter.
The book was called 'Mein Kamf', heard of it?

H

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Havalon
Sounds to me like you have been reading a book with almost exactly that same rhetoric.

The book in question was written by an Austrian painter.
The book was called 'Mein Kamf', heard of it?

I have a copy at home, just like I have a copy of Chaim Weizmann's autobiography, Karl Marx's Das Kapital and Mao's little red book.

Mod Edit: Removed mannered quote and reply.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Gemwolf]

By the way, some remarks about your signature :

Originally posted by TKainZero
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. " - Thomas Jefferson

I couldn't agree more. One of the many things I strongly object to with regards to the EU is their restrictive gun control laws.

Originally posted by TKainZero
"While it may be true that not all Muslims are terrorists, it also happens to be true that nearly all terrorists are Muslim."

The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is control of the press. Muslems objecting to zionist imperialism (which includes both US and Israeli imperialism) are called terrorists, whereas people using extreme violence in favor of zionist imperialism are called freedom fighters or resistance fighters. From that perspective, it is only logical that most people referred to as "terrorists" are Muslems as Muslems are the only ones who currently dare to take a stance against zionist imperialism. Although I strongly object to muslem presence in Europe, the Mujaheddin in Iraq and Palestine have my fullest support.

reply to post by OutoftheBoxthinker


Jesus. Don't get rid of the EU - thanks to that I can live and work freely in Europe.

How about you actually challenge things that the majority doesn't like, as opposed to things you don't like. Or are personal vendettas just your style?

OutSideTheBoxThinker...


Are you Johnny Jihad?




And just so you know, i did not state the thing in my sig.

A Muslim did.

A Imaum... i think...

[edit on 8/7/2008 by TKainZero]

Originally posted by dave420
Jesus. Don't get rid of the EU - thanks to that I can live and work freely in Europe.

So you can live and work freely in Europe. We don't need an Orwellian bureaucratic monster like the EU for that.

Originally posted by dave420
How about you actually challenge things that the majority doesn't like, as opposed to things you don't like.

In my country (Belgium) it is definitely the majority who objects to the EU as a tyrannical system with no ties whatsoever to the people. I don't think I know anyone in my environment actually positive about the EU.... which is precisely why the Belgian government is unwilling to let the population vote on issues like the European constitution. They just know they will never get the majority to support it.

Originally posted by dave420
Or are personal vendettas just your style?

Personal vendettas ????

Originally posted by TKainZero
OutSideTheBoxThinker...


Are you Johnny Jihad?

I'm just a concerned Flemish nationalist who doesn't allow himself to be indoctrinated by zionist Islamophobes.

reply to post by TKainZero


[SNIP]

This is so mixed up I can't pull it apart piece by piece... few pointers though:

Nazism and Communism were/are enemies... surely being such an expert on WW2 you should know that. But one minute you say the guy is a communist, the next a nazi... make up your mind.

And what the HELL does "appeasing the Palestinians" mean? Is it appeasing a people if we are concerned their human rights are being violated daily?

And where did the poster say he wants to oppress women?

And also, will you please refrain from spewing this ultranationalist, condescending, egotistical, garbage in which you display a rather twisted view of the UK. And FYI, it is suspected that Tim Collins is in fact a closet NeoCon. But considering you make PNAC look like the ACLU, I am not suprised you think of Collins as a 'real man.'

Mod Edit: Removed Mannered quote

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Gemwolf]

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Terran Blue]

Wow, life sure is simple in your world huh TKainZero? And why not, it's easier than checking anything, right? Why remove the names? Let's not. You chose them to fit your purpose and so obviously have a good understanding of their respective natures - I mean it's obvious, right? Black and white. One of the (no doubt) many things you understand fully.

I do wonder if you have read up on Neville Chamberlain (I don't grant you the intelligence to alter the spelling to Cham-berlin as a pun) being well aware of Britain's military situation at the time was not up to the task that lie in wait (as was exemplified by the speed with which France fell) and time was desperately needed to make the changes required.

From Blood, Sweat and Arrogance: The Myths of Churchill's War by Gordon Corrigan :

In May 1937, Prime Minister Baldwin resigned, exhausted with the abdication crisis of the previous year, and was replaced by Neville Chamberlain, hitherto Chancellor of the Exchequer. Chamberlain has been advocating rearmament for longer than anyone else - at a time when Churchill was advocating cuts in the defence vote - and as Prime Minister was quite clear about what he wanted. As both he and his successor as Chancellor, Sir John Simon, were convinced that public opinion would not stand for the level of expenditure that the Chiefs of Staff considered necessary - which could only be met by substantial increases in taxation and a reduction in social expenditure - the new Prime Minister had to find some way of improving Britain's military position without provoking national bankruptcy or serious social unrest.

...

Conventional received opinion tells us that it was Chamberlain and the appeasers, the guilty men of Munich, aided and abetted by craven generals and tight-fisted bean counters at the Treasury who were to blame, and that picture is reinforced by those who won political control of the nation in 1940, when disaster after disaster, as we shall see, prompted a change in government. It was in the interests of Winston Churchill - brought in from the cold as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1939 - and his adherents to propagate that view and to ridicule the little man and his umbrella.
In fact, Chamberlain was not ridiculous in appearance, and nor was he a coward, nor a lackey of the dictators, nor an unrealistic believer in universal brotherhood incapable of seeing the threat that Fascism posed. Chamberlain was repelled by National Socialism and was one of the first members of the cabinet to oppose the ten-year rule and, in 1934, one of the first to advocate rearmament.

...

Because of the ten-year rule, and the tortuously slow pace of rearmament after its abolition, the last time that Britain might have been able to stamp on Germany militarily was in 1936, but it is a pretty big 'might' ... After 1936 appeasement was the only possible course for the Chiefs of Staff and the government to take until Britain's armed forces were capable of acting decisively.

Although you don't seem like one who would let facts interrupt what appears a (rapidly) passing train of thought, there is a little colour for your black and white world. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is more to consider in this world than you care to.

Love,

a younger member. X x x




[edit on 8/8/08 by Mark Harris]

Its easy to knock Chamberalin (lets spell his name right shall we?).

He was an optimist and a humanitarian who hoped to head off the biggest war this planet has seen to date- after witnessing the previous "war to end all wars"- and sadly he failed.

Having said that, he was one of the driving forces behind the formation of the Special Operations Executive, and in his role as conservative leader he served in the war cabinet, and was responsible for ensuring that the conservative party remained supportive to Winston Churchill.

Patton was another kind of person entirely. He was military through and through and a keen sportsman to boot. As tough as the boots he wore and with a presence that was capable of pushing people that little extra mile. He also had the tact and diplomacy of a pissed off donkey. He also had questionable racial attitudes.

You can't compare the two, in my opinion. Trying to do so is like trying to compare an egg to an orange. Both had their outstanding points and both had their low points as well.

But, if we go back to...

I would love for some of the Younger members to look at these videos... Which man would you like to be your leader...

Would it be the man who has seen the suffering and tradgedy of war and who loves life so much and desperately wants to preserve the peace, or would it be the man who relishes the fight?

Its an interesting question. Both have their roles in society, but I would suggest that the second one is only needed after the first one has been given every chance possible to succeed in their hopes.

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker


All imperialists call themselves liberators and all terrorists call themselves freedom fighters. That's the nature of propaganda.

All liberators are labeled imperialists by subversive people. The same elements delight in confusing terrorists with freedom fighters. That's the nature of propaganda.