NationStates Jolt Archive

"Leading historian Martin Gilbert argues that Bush and Blair may one day be seen as akin to Roosevelt and Churchill."

Just read an article, Statesmen for these times (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1379819,00.html), and I thought it was interesting. Not quite sure what to think of it yet though. I think it has a little bit of bias towards Bush and Blair, but not much.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1379819,00.html

*pokes around for any old NSers that might remain*

I pray not considering FDR was a facist. Though I can see how the comparision between Blair and Churchill is feasible and could be a vaild one.

Except that we were actually attacked by the country we launched war against during WWII.
Attacking Iraq after 9/11 was the equivalent of Roosevelt launching war against Mexico for Pearl Harbor.

"Leading historian Martin Gilbert argues that Bush and Blair may one day be seen as akin to Roosevelt and Churchill."

Just read an article, Statesmen for these times (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1379819,00.html), and I thought it was interesting. Not quite sure what to think of it yet though. I think it has a little bit of bias towards Bush and Blair, but not much.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1379819,00.html

*pokes around for any old NSers that might remain*

In the Bizarro world they might be akined to Roosevelt and Churchill but not here....hopefully

Alan Roosevelt and Henry Churchill.

And Churchill was a conservative who's economic/social policies violently oppose those of our current governments.

In the Bizarro world they might be akined to Roosevelt and Churchill but not here....hopefully

The amazing thing about you, and those who share your views, is that you do not realize that if you lived in the 1930s, you would have bashed Churchill as a war monger and decided that the acts of Chamberlain were the most logical, the Kellog-Briand Act would eliminate war and there would be no reason to defend ourselves.

The amazing thing about you, and those who share your views, is that you do not realize that if you lived in the 1930s, you would have bashed Churchill as a war monger and decided that the acts of Chamberlain were the most logical, the Kellog-Briand Act would eliminate war and there would be no reason to defend ourselves.

No, probably not. Interesting speculation, though.

The amazing thing about you, and those who share your views, is that you do not realize that if you lived in the 1930s, you would have bashed Churchill as a war monger and decided that the acts of Chamberlain were the most logical, the Kellog-Briand Act would eliminate war and there would be no reason to defend ourselves.
churchill was a crackpot, but he was a wartime crackpot, a REAL war that we won, since it was a REAL war, they were seen as heros, however this is a ludicrous travesty of a war that is making bush and america look like jackasses, no matter how much you sugar coat this history, without a real war, nothing is going to happen, and even with a real war, its obvious who started it

But they were the most logical, if Chamberlain hadn't practisced appeasement, and in the years brought by that, introducede conscription and increased military spending, we would have lost the war, no doubt about it.

I really don't see the similarity - the only thing similar is that in both cases either America or Britain helped each other in a war.

Roosevelt was a socialist who helped America recover during the depression until the war solved the problem by giving everyone a job in a weapons factory. Bush isn't. World War 2 was significant, the Iraq war is comparitively not significant. Blair is supposedly left wing (He isn't) whilst Churchill was right wing.

The amazing thing about you, and those who share your views, is that you do not realize that if you lived in the 1930s, you would have bashed Churchill as a war monger and decided that the acts of Chamberlain were the most logical, the Kellog-Briand Act would eliminate war and there would be no reason to defend ourselves.

How the hell did you get that all from my post? Okay Nostradumbass tell me more about myself...you are the greatest psychic who ever lived!

Blair is to Churchill as fish are to bicycles.

Something that will forever remain in the minds of my generation, is that Blair lied in order to garner support for the war in Iraq.

I support the war in Iraq, I did before it broke out, and that won't change. My respect for our priminister however is practically nil.

In fact, if it had been up to me, I'd have had blairs resignation for the lies told to the nation over WMD, plausible deniability be damned.

I pray not considering FDR was a facist. Though I can see how the comparision between Blair and Churchill is feasible and could be a vaild one.

Facist? LOL

You could probably argue he was a socialist(ie the New Deal) but facist? :rolleyes:

But they were the most logical, if Chamberlain hadn't practisced appeasement, and in the years brought by that, introducede conscription and increased military spending, we would have lost the war, no doubt about it.

Bhutane, appeasement allowed for the Allies to be grossly underprepared for war against the Axis. This underpreperation caused many more deatsh than were necessary. Due to the appeasement also, Germany believed that the Allies would fold to their demands. The only thing the Germans did nto count on is that the Allies would continue to fight after the staggering amount of deaths and lost battles that occured for the first 3 years.

Kusari has a good point. As does whomever said Blair isnt really left-wing, centre left(ish) mayble, more left than the conservatives, yes.

Now statesman is hardly a word you can apply to the shrub.

A statesman would have had the world eating out of his hand after 9/11.

How the hell did you get that all from my post? Okay Nostradumbass tell me more about myself...you are the greatest psychic who ever lived!

I have read other posts of yours and refrianed form commenting. From these posts I have gathered that you follow the beliefs and principles of socialism and pacifism. If I am wrong please correct me.

churchill was a crackpot, but he was a wartime crackpot, a REAL war that we won, since it was a REAL war, they were seen as heros, however this is a ludicrous travesty of a war that is making bush and america look like jackasses, no matter how much you sugar coat this history, without a real war, nothing is going to happen, and even with a real war, its obvious who started it

Please enlighten me to what a real war is? I could have sworn the United States and Britain were engaged in one as of now. Are troops dying? I vaguely recall reading that on the news every other day or so.

Bhutane, appeasement allowed for the Allies to be grossly underprepared for war against the Axis. This underpreperation caused many more deatsh than were necessary. Due to the appeasement also, Germany believed that the Allies would fold to their demands. The only thing the Germans did nto count on is that the Allies would continue to fight after the staggering amount of deaths and lost battles that occured for the first 3 years.

Right, and if we'd gone to war, without the little preparation that appeasement garnered, Germany would have made it to Britain in months, war over, finished. Hitler had no interest in the US.

You say the allies, what you really mean is the UK and the commonwealth, we fought the war almost alone for 2 years.

The Germans overconfidence due to appeasement led them to open the Eastern front, that probably won the war in many respects.

I have read other posts of yours and refrianed form commenting. From these posts I have gathered that you follow the beliefs and principles of socialism and pacifism. If I am wrong please correct me.

Socialism? God forbid...I am in marketing! Pacifism...look if people want to go blowing each other up...thats their business...just keep it out of my backyard....I never once made any comments regarding socialism or pacifism...why are you telling lies?

I really don't see the similarity - the only thing similar is that in both cases either America or Britain helped each other in a war.

Roosevelt was a socialist who helped America recover during the depression until the war solved the problem by giving everyone a job in a weapons factory. Bush isn't. World War 2 was significant, the Iraq war is comparitively not significant. Blair is supposedly left wing (He isn't) whilst Churchill was right wing.

Correction, his facist policies kept us in the Depression.

Please enlighten me to what a real war is? I could have sworn the United States and Britain were engaged in one as of now. Are troops dying? I vaguely recall reading that on the news every other day or so.

Apparently the 'war' in Iraq is over, this is re-construction, and enlighten me how we fight a war against an idea??

Apparently the 'war' in Iraq is over, this is re-construction, and enlighten me how we fight a war against an idea??

I agree with you in regarding the naming of the war(War on Terror). It is truly Orwellian in nature. However I am talking about the war in Iraq and another correction on the Iraqi War it is in reconstruction, the war there is over.

Socialism? God forbid...I am in marketing! Pacifism...look if people want to go blowing each other up...thats their business...just keep it out of my backyard....I never once made any comments regarding socialism or pacifism...why are you telling lies?

My mistake, I must have construed your comments incorrectly. So is it safe to say that you do not support welfare, social security, etc, since you are nto a socialist.

Please enlighten me to what a real war is? I could have sworn the United States and Britain were engaged in one as of now. Are troops dying? I vaguely recall reading that on the news every other day or so.
a real war, you know a war, you know an official war declared by the congress of the united states, not a cowboy lets go kill some suckas policing action that is what we are doing now amounts to.

was bill clinton a war time president? no because there wasnt a WAR we were involved in, we are NOT involved in a WAR right now

and are you comparing iraq to ww 1 and ww 2? hell, vietnam wasnt even a war, and it was more of a real war than this little lesson in stupidity buish screwed us into right now

I agree with you in regarding the naming of the war(War on Terror). It is truly Orwellian in nature. However I am talking about the war in Iraq and another correction on the Iraqi War it is in reconstruction, the war there is over.

I said it was in reconstruction, I was being overly ironic (not a good idea on the net) just the casualties there are far higher daily than they were in the war post the major bombing campaigns. So in that light is the war really over?

My mistake, I must have construed your comments incorrectly. So is it safe to say that you do not support welfare, social security, etc, since you are nto a socialist.

I would only support welfare,social security, etc if it would benefit ME...the only political stance which I support is oppurtunism

a real war, you know a war, you know an official war declared by the congress of the united states, not a cowboy lets go kill some suckas policing action that is what we are doing now amounts to.

was bill clinton a war time president? no because there wasnt a WAR we were involved in, we are NOT involved in a WAR right now

Hahaha I do love the cowboy reference. I do believe that Congress did support the President on the War Against Terror. Did they not pass a bill about this...hmmm

Bill Clinton was a war time president in varius stages of his presidency. He did mount an action against the Iraqis, Desert Fox. He did nto wage full scale war, but it was war nonetheless.

I have read other posts of yours and refrianed form commenting. From these posts I have gathered that you follow the beliefs and principles of socialism and pacifism. If I am wrong please correct me.

Um...it was the socialists who had been warning of the dangers that Hitler and the Nazis represented for years before WW2.....and it was the socialists who went to fight and die against fascism in the Spanish Civil War. Remember that.

I would only support welfare,social security, etc if it would benefit ME...the only political stance which I support is oppurtunism

True you are a nihilist. In the long run these won't help you, since you are taxed all along for these, and given back less.

Correction, his facist policies kept us in the Depression.

What's your defenition of fascism (notice the correct spelling)?!

Correction, his facist policies kept us in the Depression.

Uh, no - look at statistics. Under Hoover, unemployment rose as he sat around doing nothing to combat the depression. Under Roosevelt, unemployment sharply dropped until the war solved it completely. His socialist policies worked extremley well - the only people who weren't happy were the whiney rich who had to pay more taxes.

Come on - don't try to make a case suggesting that Roosevelt was worse for the depression than Hoover. Even my philosophy professor, who is a staunch conservative, admits that he helped America out of the depression (Although he claims it only worked because it was in the short term)

True you are a nihilist. In the long run these won't help you, since you are taxed all along for these, and given back less.

The funny thing is...Blantant Oppurtunist do most of the taxing...we have taken over all your political parties and governments. Taxes are only for the little people like the middle class

Um...it was the socialists who had been warning of the dangers that Hitler and the Nazis represented for years before WW2.....and it was the socialists who went to fight and die against fascism in the Spanish Civil War. Remember that.

HAHAHA, yes warning against. The British and French socialists in the government were not warning against Hitler's reach for power, generally. I do hate to generalize also, but the majority of socialists hold the same principles and tenets of pacifists.

Furthermore in the Spainish Civil War, the socialists were just as bad as Nazis in many aspects. Not all of the socialist who went to Spain to fight the Nazis. especially the leadership, were doing it to fight nazism, instead many were doing it for their own political gain.

The guy actually refers to the war on terror rather than the Iraq war. But a lot of what he says is true, if the war on terror achieves its aims (which I doubt), because history is written by the winners. Remember he says 'seen' rather 'are'.

Just picture this: There are stable democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democracy is gaining support in neighbouring countries. Bin Laden has been caught and executed. Al Qaida has collapsed. And Israel and the PLA are independent, co-operative, but independent democracies... Are you sure anyone will remember anything about WMDs, or will the issue of WMDs be relegated to small groups of academics/intellectuals and conspiracy theorists?

"Leading historian Martin Gilbert argues that Bush and Blair may one day be seen as akin to Roosevelt and Churchill."


Then again, they may one day be seen as akin to Hitler and Mussolini. Or Lenin and Stalin. Or Abbott and Costello. Or, you could add Australia's John Howard to obtain The Three Stooges. Tweedledee and Tweedeldum perhaps.

In any case, wasn't it "Roosevelt,Churchill and Stalin". Post war Europe owes little thanks to any of them, with only Churchill seemingly aware of what was about to occur.

The bottom line is that it is pointless to speculate on how the future will regard people whose actions and their effects are still unfolding. Hitler was widely praised after the Berlin Olympics.

Lets just wait and see.

To be pedantic - Roosevelt wasn't a socialist, this much is obvious. But it is arguable that the New Deal was a socialist policy or at least was socialistic.

Anyway, isn't this all a bit off-topic?

The funny thing is...Blantant Oppurtunist do most of the taxing...we have taken over all your political parties and governments. Taxes are only for the little people like the middle class

Taxing to excess hurts all those, except for the politicains who make it their job to steal more money.

Taxing to excess hurts all those, except for the politicains who make it their job to steal more money.

And the people who pull their strings...

To be pedantic - Roosevelt wasn't a socialist, this much is obvious. But it is arguable that the New Deal was a socialist policy or at least was socialistic.

Anyway, isn't this all a bit off-topic?

No arguing that he instilled socialist policies, specifically the New Deal. It also was facist, becuase it took elements of socialism, but was not true socialism, which makes it facism.

And the people who pull their strings...

Who is pulling their strings?

HAHAHA, yes warning against. The British and French socialists in the government were not warning against Hitler's reach for power, generally. I do hate to generalize also, but the majority of socialists hold the same principles and tenets of pacifists.

Furthermore in the Spainish Civil War, the socialists were just as bad as Nazis in many aspects. Not all of the socialist who went to Spain to fight the Nazis. especially the leadership, were doing it to fight nazism, instead many were doing it for their own political gain.

Learn your history before you get all self-righteous and disrespectful to the memories of brave men and women who fought for freedom.

I'm not sure about in France, but there were no socialists in the British government during the 1930s up until WW2. The Labour Party did not win any general elections during this period.

There weren't Nazis in Spain - it was Franco's fascist nationalists they were fighting against. Major error.

Then again, they may one day be seen as akin to Hitler and Mussolini. Or Lenin and Stalin. Or Abbott and Costello. Or, you could add Australia's John Howard to obtain The Three Stooges. Tweedledee and Tweedeldum perhaps.

In any case, wasn't it "Roosevelt,Churchill and Stalin". Post war Europe owes little thanks to any of them, with only Churchill seemingly aware of what was about to occur.

The bottom line is that it is pointless to speculate on how the future will regard people whose actions and their effects are still unfolding. Hitler was widely praised after the Berlin Olympics.

Lets just wait and see.

Awww, but it's fun to speculate.

Anyway, I think the guy's talking or a more... 'plebian history'. I don't think Stalin is included because he's a "communist".

I just find it a bit disconcerting that today's villian is tomorrow's hero and vice versa. Though it seems to happen quite frequently.

Who is pulling their strings?

Money talks...and the petty little people who worry about excesss taxation...work

Learn your history before you get all self-righteous and disrespectful to the memories of brave men and women who fought for freedom.

I'm not sure about in France, but there were no socialists in the British government during the 1930s up until WW2. The Labour Party did not win any general elections during this period.

There weren't Nazis in Spain - it was Franco's fascist nationalists they were fighting against. Major error.

Speaking of learning history, Hitler sent German troops and equipment to Spain to aid Franco's government in the civil war. For Hitler, the spanish civil war was an opportunity to test tactics and equipment learnt in Russia, otherwise known as Blitzkrieg.

Learn your history before you get all self-righteous and disrespectful to the memories of brave men and women who fought for freedom.

I'm not sure about in France, but there were no socialists in the British government during the 1930s up until WW2. The Labour Party did not win any general elections during this period.

There weren't Nazis in Spain - it was Franco's fascist nationalists they were fighting against. Major error.

When I say Nazis, I am not completely incorrect in saying it. I should have said merely facists, however Franco was assisted by the Nazis in every way to create his facist rule. He did have their experts, their support, supplies, and even troops.

When I am addressing socialism, one must realize that though people in the government may have not been labeled specifically socialist, they were socialist in many of their policies and principles. The other parties in the British government did have influence also, so though they might not have specifically been in charge, their opinions still mattered and influenced policy.

I'm sorry but this is quite foolish. You cannot tell how Bush and Blair will thought of in the future. They might be saw as Roosevelt and Churchill. They might be see as Hitler and Mussolinni. They might be seen as Jesus and Christ. Look, arguing about the future is so stupid there is no metaphor that is sufficient.

Speaking of learning history, Hitler sent German troops and equipment to Spain to aid Franco's government in the civil war. For Hitler, the spanish civil war was an opportunity to test tactics and equipment learnt in Russia, otherwise known as Blitzkrieg.

Thank you.

Money talks...and the petty little people who worry about excesss taxation...work

You haven't given an answer, you just keep on alluding to some sort of financial hierarchy that assures that all the middle class are just proles to the rich. Please enlgihten me on who is manipulating us all rather then bringing up possible consiparcy theories.

I'm sorry but this is quite foolish. You cannot tell how Bush and Blair will thought of in the future. They might be saw as Roosevelt and Churchill. They might be see as Hitler and Mussolinni. They might be seen as Jesus and Christ. Look, arguing about the future is so stupid there is no metaphor that is sufficient.Maybe not foolish, pointless maybe. Of course I can't tell how the future will treat these people, but does that mean it's not worth thinking about? Is the point of discussion nessisarily about about how Bush and Blair will be seen? Or other more general points?... Damn, I've forgotten my main point. >.<

You haven't given an answer, you just keep on alluding to some sort of financial hierarchy that assures that all the middle class are just proles to the rich. Please enlgihten me on who is manipulating us all rather then bringing up possible consiparcy theories.

Its not a conspiracy...you are a prole...if the government wants my spare change to throw bread crumbs to the poor so that they will shut up...thats good policy to me and no skin off my back...its petty change and I don;t worry about petty change...any intelligent person could see that "Bread and Circuses" is a good time-tested political policy. It keeps the middle class bitching and moaning about the poor but feeling powerless and it keeps the poor dependent and powerless...sounds good to me, I like things the way they are, a true conservative.

Ahh, it's great to marvel at the endless compassion and altruism of people in general.

Maybe not foolish, pointless maybe. Of course I can't tell how the future will treat these people, but does that mean it's not worth thinking about? Is the point of discussion nessisarily about about how Bush and Blair will be seen? Or other more general points?... Damn, I've forgotten my main point. >.<It's worth thinking about, but not arguing about.

Its not a conspiracy...you are a prole...if the government wants my spare change to throw bread crumbs to the poor so that they will shut up...thats good policy to me and no skin off my back...its petty change and I don;t worry about petty change...any intelligent person could see that "Bread and Circuses" is a good time-tested political policy. It keeps the middle class bitching and moaning about the poor but feeling powerless and it keeps the poor dependent and powerless...sounds good to me, I like things the way they are, a true conservative.

50% of your money is spare change..

Ah yes. I've been away from NS for so long that I've forgotten people don't discuss ideas here, just argue about them. Alas.

50% of your money is spare change..

Is that what you pay? Well things are tough all over...

Its not a conspiracy...you are a prole...if the government wants my spare change to throw bread crumbs to the poor so that they will shut up...thats good policy to me and no skin off my back...its petty change and I don;t worry about petty change...any intelligent person could see that "Bread and Circuses" is a good time-tested political policy. It keeps the middle class bitching and moaning about the poor but feeling powerless and it keeps the poor dependent and powerless...sounds good to me, I like things the way they are, a true conservative.

"Equality and Justice for all" eh?

But not if you live below the poverty line? :p

As for time tested political policies... The rest of the world is moving away from the neanderthallic "if you're poor, its cause you're too lazy to earn as much money as me" attitude.

"Equality and Justice for all" eh?

But not if you live below the poverty line? :p

As for time tested political policies... The rest of the world is moving away from the neanderthallic "if you're poor, its cause you're too lazy to earn as much money as me" attitude.

Why are you telling me this? I am not the one complaining about my petty change or throwing crumbs to the poor...let them eat cake for all I care.

Speaking as a Brit, Winston Churchill was a great man who stood up for his country in a time of desperate need. He has come to represent strength in adversity, bravery, and national conviction, and I have nothing but admiration for him.

...Tony Blair, on the other hand, is the most reviled British leader in recent history. To even hear him mentioned in the same sentence as Churchill is, frankly, insulting.

I can’t speak about President Bush, but PM Blair is a terrible, terrible politician, and I won’t be sorry to see him go in the next general election.

....

...Erm, yeah. *wanders away*

I pray not considering FDR was a facist. Though I can see how the comparision between Blair and Churchill is feasible and could be a vaild one.

Your sentiments are absurd sir. Winston Churchill was an honourable, noble man - the greatest man who ever occupied Number 10 Downing Street. He was the light in the darkness, the thin slive rof hope never wavering despite of the sea of despair. He was the embodiment of British values: a bull dog tenacity to fight no matter what.

Tony Blair however is an oily opportunist who represents only those who would have political correctness rule the world. He is a devious coward who can never take responsibilty for his mistakes. He cannot even bring himself to apologise for misleading the nation over Iraq even when most of his ministers have done so. Any honourable Prime Minister would have resigned for half of what Blair has done but he cannot bear to let go. I look forward to the day when he and his smug smile are kicked out of office.

a real war, you know a war, you know an official war declared by the congress of the united states, not a cowboy lets go kill some suckas policing action that is what we are doing now amounts to.

was bill clinton a war time president? no because there wasnt a WAR we were involved in, we are NOT involved in a WAR right now

"WE" weren't at "war" as of 9/10/01. So we just ignored these "terrorists", maybe "attempted" to slow them down here and there, but realistically we just went back to our "pre-WWI" idea of the world. But then what happened on 9/11??

And we were doing the same with Iraq. Throw a few hundred UN resolutions at Saddam and just maybe he won't attack another neighboring country or gas a few thousand people. So maybe we should have done just like we did before, just ignore the problem and it will go away? Right? Just like the terrorists.

and are you comparing iraq to ww 1 and ww 2? hell, vietnam wasnt even a war,

so you supported the communist aggression in Vietnam?? how about Korea? how about Afghanistan?

And we were doing the same with Iraq. Throw a few hundred UN resolutions at Saddam and just maybe he won't attack another neighboring country or gas a few thousand people. So maybe we should have done just like we did before, just ignore the problem and it will go away? Right? Just like the terrorists.

I dunno. Giving him more weapons and making deals with him worked for Daddy Bush and his predecesor. Ouch.

so you supported the communist aggression in Vietnam??
Both sides were corrupt. One just happened to be the aggressor. Why were we there?

and just maybe he won't gas a few thousand people.

*cough, rflm, cough* Were are the WMD's?*cough* The lie you started the war for when you needed oil, oil that other countries pay and ya wanted for free.BTW, it were US chemicals used against the Kurds in '88. Chemical weapons that enriched your dear vice president.*oops* .. Oh, you are such hypocrits :rolleyes:

*cough, rflm, cough* Were are the WMD's?*cough*

Where could you hide something in 4 years??

Iraq denied that it ever had an offensive BW program until the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and head of the WMD program in Iraq, in 1995. Even then, Iraq continued to hide as much information, equipment and material from UN inspectors as it could. Thus, many aspects of Iraq's biological weapon program remain unknown. These unknowns include the total amount of germ agent Iraq produced and the status of Iraq's unaccounted for stocks of biological growth media, agents, production equipment and handbooks, as well as munitions and warheads. Furthermore, inspectors say that Iraq became self-sufficient, meaning it no longer needed imports to fuel its BW program. The uncertainties that surround this program made it all the more threatening in the absence of inspections and monitoring.

You keep on living in your dream world............

The lie you started the war for when you needed oil, oil that other countries pay and ya wanted for free.BTW, it were US chemicals used against the Kurds in '88. Chemical weapons that enriched your dear vice president.*oops* .. Oh, you are such hypocrits :rolleyes:

And you are such blind hypocrites!!


US chemicals??

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif

And just IF you're unable to use the link.....

Netherlands:
Tabun
Sarin
Mustard

Brazil:
Mustard

Luxembourg:
Mustard

Germany:
Tabun
Sarin
Mustard

Egypt:
Tabun
Sarin

India:
VX
Tabun
Sarin
Mustard

Singapore:
VX
Tabun
Sarin
Mustard

[QUOTE=New British Glory]Your sentiments are absurd sir. Winston Churchill was an honourable, noble man - the greatest man who ever occupied Number 10 Downing Street. He was the light in the darkness, the thin slive rof hope never wavering despite of the sea of despair. He was the embodiment of British values: a bull dog tenacity to fight no matter what.
QUOTE]

LOL!

Here's a classic quote from Winston; "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

Nice guy.

...Tony Blair, on the other hand, is the most reviled British leader in recent history. To even hear him mentioned in the same sentence as Churchill is, frankly, insulting.

Nah. That dubious honour goes to Maggie Thatcher. **booooo hisssss**

Seriously, excuse me if i sound abit communist but really is there anything wrong with supporting the blue collar worker over the white collar worker? The blue collar is the backbone of nations, our ranks aren't exactly filled with rich kids and you don't see execs on the factory floor running a machine or working by hand.

Aside from that I liked both FDR and Churchill, they were very good in the political and military aspects. As for chamberlain? complete failure. Trusting the nazis, psha.How blind was he, it may seem obvious now that hitler was a betrayl waiting to happen but back then it should've been obvious too.

Hate thatcher, She didn't listen to Bobby Sands and the hunger strike, i think those riots are what thatcher deserved. IF the idiot would've listened IReland and the UK Might've been at peace again.. permanently. Pompus cuss.

Why do people forget that although Churchill may have been a good wartime leader he was also a reactionary old fart who would have been completely forgotten by history - or at least not seen as any sort of hero - had it not been for World War 2.

He was against giving women the vote, granting independence to India, and the roles he played in establishing the Iraqi state and dealing with the Irish problem are still causing the world grief to this day.

And here's another quote...""I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia by the fact that a stronger race has come in and taken their place".

Sorry to not be a pessimist, but Thatcher was alot worse. If anyone owuld've made a great leader it would've been Bobby Sands. By the way, you can't say the race thing as a valid argument because a majority of people were that way back then, the idea of equal everything didn't surface till post WWII.

Can't say about what Blair's legacy will wind up being, but I think it's far more likely Bush will be remembered more like Nero or Caligula than as FDR. Give the economy a couple more years, and he may also be seen as the heir to Hoover.

Ah and so it begins.

Politically correct morons come along and slag Winston Churchill off. It is alarming that they can throw their slanerous comments at such a great and noble man whom very people could ever claim to equal.

No arguing that he instilled socialist policies, specifically the New Deal. It also was facist, becuase it took elements of socialism, but was not true socialism, which makes it facism.

You're confused with National Socialism. This is what Hitler used to fool people into voting for him. It's not socialism but more like a fake. Real socialism is not fake. I don't think Rooseveld faked his socialism, the Democrats are too generic for anyone to be a fake. He's a democratic-socialist of the highest order.

Hitler was less than fascist. Fascism nowhere mentions that Jews, gays, gypsies and handicapped need to be persecuted. It does not have a racist theory by itself. It places high emphasis on patriotism and dictatorial leadership. It praises war and the culture of the fatherland. Italy was not Nazi-ist until Mussolini had to make 'social adjustments' to garner German support for his wars. Hitler went a step further than fascism and forever besmirched National Socialism (now in short it's Nazi). The National Socialist German Labourer Party did not call itself 'just fascist'. It fits into their line of thinking but takes it to the extreme.

Of course, the extreme of Socialism is Communism which usually gets infiltrated by people such as Mao, Stalin and Kim Ill Son who are nothing more than dictators under the banner of a idealogy they don't care for. National Socialism and Communism have one thing in common: they are forever cursed by history. Only one of them is actually something as an idealogy, albeit nearly unrealistic.

Hmm Chuchill and FDR,........... Nah.

More like Burns and Gracy with the clueless Gracy as the dominate partner. Hey dig it:

Burns and Gracy

Blair and George


It's a B&G thing. :D