Churchill would do “anything” to win? Don’t think so. Whatever torture the Brits may have engaged in was the rare exception rather than the rule. For the Nazis, it was business as usual.

Let’s see; what else? Hitler’s war to exterminate the Jews had very little to do with “winning”—in fact, it diverted people and energy from his war effort. I wasn’t aware that Churchill targeted millions of innocent civilians for the purpose of exterminating them from the face of the earth because he felt they were “vermin.”

More differences? How about the little business of starting a war against people who aren’t bothering you or threatening you in any way, vs. defending yourself and your country against that attack?

And then there were the principles for which Hitler and Churchill were fighting. Do you really think that fighting to defend a parliamentary form of government that promulgates individual freedom is quite the same as fighting to expand a fascist and repressive, tyrannical, murderous dictatorship?

If you do, I think there’s a lot more than Republicanism you need to recover from.

Your arguments are pure sophistry, and I believe you are aware of that.

So, point out, please, where this reasoning is wrong. If both Churchill and the Nazis were dedicated to and believed in the “anything-to-win” view, were they not both, IN PRINCIPLE, the same?
Of course they would be.

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com

Recovering Republican

JLof@aol.com

As for the existence or nonexistence of Hulk2008’s link, please see this.

Also,

Hulk2008,
I say no such Churchill quote exists. I say you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you have the link put up or hush up.

You do know how to add a link?

Test – This text would be blue.

If it was presented to him and he returned it, he’s an idiot. The gift was about what Churchill means to the Brits, not what Churchill means to Obama. If it was already here, it wasn’t his to return at all.

On loan since 9/11.

And yes, it would be kind of like returning the bust of MLK jr.

“But the president did make one glaring error. He said, when discussing torture, that he’d read an article recently saying how Churchill, at the height of the blitz, said of Great Britain “we don’t torture.”

He may well have read such an article, and Churchill may well have made such a statement. But Britain did torture. Says who? Says the Guardian. I refer you, friends, to The Cage.”

The author cites an article titled “The secrets of the London Cage” that appeared in The Guardian in 2005. “The London Cage was run by MI19, the section of the War Office responsible for gleaning information from enemy prisoners of war, and few outside this organisation knew exactly what went on beyond the single barbed-wire fence that separated the three houses from the busy streets and grand parks of west London.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world

Other readers may want to check it out.

If it was presented to him and he returned it, he’s an idiot. The gift was about what Churchill means to the Brits, not what Churchill means to Obama. If it was already here, it wasn’t his to return at all.

If I must go there – in order for a liberal to understand it – I will. Imagine if Obama gave you a bust of Martin Luther King as a gesture of friendship and closeness. How would he feel if you said “No thanks” and sent it back? Bingo.