Matter of fact, Churchill was somewhat of a warmonger in his basic nature, I think. He was a very aggressive fellow when it came to national policy, and he made some extraordinarily brutal, really insane statements here and there (like declaring on one occasion that it would be desirable to exterminate every last Japanese...man, woman and child).

Be that as it may, he was exactly what England needed at that juncture in history, given the fact that Hitler was a WHOLE LOT WORSE!

I have always seen Churchill as a rather checkered character. Kind of like Patton, who loved fighting battles and was good for nothing in peacetime. those guys are great to have when you're engaged in a life and death struggle...they are a liability when it's over. This was, I think, perceived instinctively by the British public after the war, and they voted for a change in leadership.

Your account of the D-Day planning was interesting and accurate, Teribus. It was a very well executed operation in the logistical sense...less so in the tactical sense...until Patton made his spectacular breakout and end run. I believe if they had given him everything he wanted (particularly fuel) he would have been in Berlin by Christmas '44...or even sooner than that. One hell of a good fighting general! (and just a little bit mad...)

I do not agree that Iraq is any serious danger to the USA. Rather, Iraq is an excuse. An excuse for the further extension of a much larger world-wide plan of action by the USA. The USA, like other great empires of the past (Soviet Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, Persia, Rome, Carthage, Greece, etc...) is attempting to enlarge its spheres of influence and perpetuate certain forms of economic and social inequality upon which its fortunes have been built and maintained.

Iraq is the excuse of the hour. A new excuse will be found in due course of time.

- LH