Similarities are not present, except for:

1. In opinion of London in Sudetes in 1938 human rights were broken,
and Czechoslovakia threatened the peace in the Europe.
In opinion of London in Iraq in 2003 human rights were broken,
and Iraq threatened safety in the world.
2. London lobbied occupation of Sudetes in 1938 and Iraq in 2003.
3. Military force in these operations is assigned to the most armed countries
during corresponding times.
4. Sudetes and Iraq had become the important strategic and raw resource.
5. London shifts the responsibility for occupation on the countries-allies.
Attitudes before the allied countries change.
The policy becomes internal matter.

As well as 64 years ago a priority policy of London is a struggle for
human rights in the East.

Does similarity comes to an end on this?