Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: Bush will not be mocked
The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 02/12/05 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 02/10/2005 5:51:09 AM PST by Pokey78

New Hampshire

On the eve of the Iraq election, the Times treated us to a riveting columnar collaboration: ‘We need to fix an exit timetable, say Robin Cook, Douglas Hurd and Menzies Campbell’ — in perfect harmony. To modify Churchill, defeat may be an orphan, but defeatism has many fathers, and these three were in tripartisan agreement about what a disaster Iraq had been.

You’d have got a better idea of how election day was likely to proceed from that week’s Speccie, which blared across its cover ‘Iraq — the unreported triumph: Mark Steyn says that things are going Bush’s way’ — though I got the vague feeling the editors intended the headline parodically and were setting Humpty Steyny up for a helluva fall. One of the unsettling aspects of the post-9/11 world is that, while my columns in US newspapers merely have to heap scorn and derision upon Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand, in the United Kingdom I find myself principally in disagreement with Lord Hurd, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Sir Max Hastings, Sir Simon Jenkins, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, Mr Matthew Parris and (according to what side of bed he’s gotten out of) Mr Michael Howard. Even The Spectator most weeks. This crowd are all supposedly, to one degree or another, conservatives. So am I. Clearly, one of us has got the wrong end of the stick.

The obvious difference between my kind of conservatives and, say, Sir Peregrine’s is that mine are in power and his aren’t, a distinction likely to endure for the foreseeable future. To be sure, there are prominent American conservatives who are a little queasy about Bush’s plan to liberate the entire world whether it wants it or not, and several of the colossi from the first Bush administration had misgivings about the whole Iraq business from the get-go. My colleague Taki even founded a magazine for anti-war right-wingers, The American Conservative — though it seems somewhat short of either, dependent as it is on contributors Canadian (the veteran Toronto Sun doom-monger Eric Margolis) and British (our own Stuart Reid) plus a few fringe isolationist libertarians to make up the native numbers.

But that’s the point: in America, anti-war conservatives are small in number and, for the most part, wary and suspicious rather than openly hostile. You can find the odd NIONist (Not In Our Name) on the Australian Right, too — most notably Malcolm Fraser, the former prime minister. But in the Anglophone democracies, only among British conservatives is antipathy to the great challenge of the age widespread, if not getting on for near universal.

As a result, the Tory party looks a lot more like the Democratic party and the Australian Labor party than its nominal ideological soulmates. For one thing, they’re losers. Last year, after the Spanish election, after the failure to find WMD, after new commissions and reports every other week, and the sense from the press that the ‘BUSH LIED!!/ BLAIR LIED!!!!’ stuff could be made to stick, they fell for the received wisdom that Iraq would prove an electoral liability for the three musketeers of the Anglosphere. Instead, John Howard won big, and so did Bush, and so will Blair. Meanwhile, Iraq is more of a liability for their oppositions: the Democrats are split between a noisy anti-war faction (Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy) and a bunch of pusillanimous, jelly-spined, finger-in-the-windy weathervane pols who don’t know whether they’re for it or against it until their consultants run it by the focus groups (Kerry, Edwards, 2008 contender Evan Bayh). And somehow the Conservatives have wound up in the same position, divided between those who are agin it (like Do-Nothing Doug Hurd, fast becoming the Ted Kennedy of the Tories) and those who no longer know what they think about it and have fallen into what Janet Daley calls ‘post hoc equivocation’.

As John Kerry learnt, that’s unlikely to be rewarded on Election Day. It’s even less likely when things are broadly, as the Speccie’s cover had it, ‘going Bush’s way’ — in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Even the tsunami confirmed the superiority of ‘coalitions of the willing’ (the Aussie-American relief effort) over the approved transnational mechanisms (the UN humanitarian press conferences announcing that, in another week or two, they’d be flying someone into the general area to hold an on-location press conference to announce the setting-up of an assessment team to assess long-term needs for more press conferences). For a good example of how the naysayers are simply getting left behind in the past, look at Sir Simon Jenkins’s churlish post-election column: ‘The neocon bragging over a “beacon of democracy” now being raised over the Muslim world is absurd,’ he wrote. ‘There were active, contested elections in Palestine in 1996, Egypt in 2000...’.

Whoa, hold it right there. C’mon, man, the winner of Egypt’s 2000 election was never in any doubt (though I note that in the 1995 Egyptian elections more people were killed than on Iraq’s polling day). As for Palestine, Sir Simon complains that ‘America refused to acknowledge Yasser Arafat as a democrat’. Maybe that’s because he was elected in 1996 to a five-year term: you do the math. He stayed on till he died — and, indeed, if the rumours coming out of that French hospital were true, for several days after he died. If he hadn’t been carried out by the handles in the ninth year of his five-year term, he’d doubtless be planning big public festivities to mark its tenth anniversary. If Bush were to stay on till, oh, 2011, I doubt that Sir Simon would be eager to acknowledge Dubya as a democrat. The fact is the Europeans’ willingness to string along with that kind of sham ‘democracy’ is one reason why Arafat felt under no pressure to change his ways.

Arafat fetishisation was embarrassing enough when the old monster was still around to slobber all over fawning emissaries from the EU and the Vatican and teary-eyed BBC correspondents. But the thing is he’s dead now. Even the Palestinians have moved on. Contempt for the Iraqi electorate is all very well, but frantically trying to jump-start Arafat’s corpse to prove your point makes you look as dead as he is. You can’t flog a dead horse, even if it’s an Arab. And you don’t have to subscribe to popular regional theories that the Zionist Entity poisoned him to recognise that Arafat did more for ‘the Middle East peace process’ by dying than he’d done in the previous 40 years. If any kind of peace is to be forced on the Palestinians, it’s going to be closer to the Bush-Rice vision of things than the EU Arafat-pandering.

Lord Hurd was even less worthy. Take this passage: ‘We should tell the Iraqi leadership now that we draw a distinction between the security threat which they face (as a result of what we have done and left undone) and their central political problem. That political problem of bringing together Shias, Sunnis and Kurds must be for Iraqis to sort out. Our troops cannot be expected to police relations between the majority and a rejectionist minority.’

That’s pretty rich coming from the folks who created their ‘central political problem’ by lumping Shias, Sunnis and Kurds in one state and then giving it to the now ‘rejectionist minority’ to run for 80 years. And, whatever his disagreements with Bush and Blair, I’m sure Do-Nothing Doug is fully supportive of the informal decision to nix any plans for an independent Kurdistan. And, while we’re at it, much of the ‘security threat’ comes from Western pressure to bring everyone ‘together’: the new police and military units have been strong-armed by the coalition into taking in dodgy Sunnis who promptly sell ’em out to the suicide bombers and head-hackers.

Lord Hurd evidently thinks ‘nation-building’ is utopian hooey. Maybe it is. But one reason the region is in the mess it’s in is that, in 1922, fag-end British imperialism was too fainthearted to inculcate British ‘nation-building’ values (as in India) but still arrogant enough to complicate their politics, impose weak outside emirs as their kings, elevate minority groups into the ruling class — and then scram. It’s no coincidence that the region of the world that causes the most trouble for the rest is the one the Western imperialists stayed in just long enough to screw up but not long enough to do any good in.

The question arises then: what do you do about it now? When I called this war ‘the great challenge of the age’, I can almost hear Hurd, Rifkind, Hastings, Jenkins, Worsthorne and co. huffing that there’s no great challenge; the whole war-on-terror flimflam is some lunatic fantasy cooked up by Washington. There’s a very, very tiny grain of truth in that. The terrorism is the one eighth of the iceberg above the surface. The other seven eighths are deeper, darker developments. Until the top eighth suddenly materialised on 9/11, very little was written about, say, Islamic immigration to Europe. In these hypersensitive times, it would have been difficult to do so. It’s still difficult, even after 9/11, Bali, Beslan, etc. But at the very bottom of the iceberg is a basic fact: most of the countries with the fastest-growing populations are Muslim, and most of the ones just beginning the demographic death-spiral are Western. So the one thing we can say for certain is that the world of the mid-21st century will be a lot more Islamic and a lot less European. In the space of 40 years, half of Nigeria has gone from living under English common law to Sharia. What’s the tipping point? And why would, say, Belgium be any more resistant than Nigeria?

That takes us to the middle part of the iceberg: not only are there going to be a lot more Muslims but those Muslims are likely to be much more radical. After 9/11, it became fashionable to write columns about how Islam needs its own Reformation; they need to find a way, as Christians did, of adapting their holy book to a modern political culture, etc. This overlooked the obvious fact: a Reformation of a kind is already well under way — the Islamic revolution in Iran, the Taleban and al-Qa’eda, the Saudi-funded madrasas springing up in Pakistan, Indonesia, Chechnya, the Balkans, Paris, London, Ontario, Oregon have all found a way of adapting the Koran to a modern political culture.

In The Spectator in 2002, I quoted Lee Kuan Yew’s observations about the change in Singapore’s Muslims over recent decades: once relatively integrated, they now keep themselves to themselves, cover their womenfolk, and are stricter in their observances. The following year, a senior Dutch cabinet minister told me about the same phenomenon in his country: today’s young Muslims are more fundamentalist and isolated than their immigrant grandparents from the East Indies were in the early Seventies. This is the Islamic Reformation, and it’s happening across the globe, from Scandinavia to Java.

The other day Arthur Chrenkoff, an Australia blogger who does a ‘Good News From Iraq’ round-up for the Wall Street Journal, was in uncharacteristically gloomy mood: he was having a coffee with fellow antipodean author Sophie Masson, who, like Mrs Chrenkoff, was born in Indonesia. The talk fell to how one of the most easy-going of Muslim cultures had changed over the last two decades, as radical Islamism slowly took root.

That’s the seven eighths of the iceberg that the war’s really about: there are more Muslims, and more of those Muslims are radicalised. That doesn’t mean they all want to graduate to the top eighth and fly planes into skyscrapers or release a dirty nuke in Birmingham, but it does indicate that if you’re cooking up a scheme along those lines, you’ve got a much bigger talent pool to draw on — and that at a certain point they won’t need to release dirty nukes, because Islamification will be so advanced that many countries will simply find a way to accommodate it. Look at Holland, where Theo van Gogh’s fellow film-makers reacted to his murder by cancelling the screening of his picture and scheduling some Muslim propaganda flicks. Are these people likely to show any more backbone in 20 years’ time, when Europe’s cities are even more Islamic and even more radically Islamic?

Right now, Bush is the only strategic game in town. He intends to change, by one means or another, the problem regimes in the Middle East — which is almost all of them — and shrivel their ideological exports. It’s an ambitious strategy, but so far it’s working out, and at a level of casualties that any previous generation, in Britain or America, would have recognised as the lowest in history. Maybe the Tory nay-sayers have a better idea, but, if not, elegant, languid, limp toff complacency isn’t going to cut it. British Conservatives should get on side, before there’s nothing left to conserve.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bush43; marksteyn; steynomite
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 02/10/2005 5:51:09 AM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; riley1992; Miss Marple; deport; Dane; sinkspur; steve; kattracks; JohnHuang2; ...

Steyn ping.


2 posted on 02/10/2005 5:52:01 AM PST by Pokey78 (11/02/04: The death of Zogby's "sterling" reputation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snugs

pinging you to an interesting article.


3 posted on 02/10/2005 5:54:41 AM PST by JustaCowgirl (You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs -- George W Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Right now, Bush is the only strategic game in town.

Good article! (As usual...)

4 posted on 02/10/2005 5:55:34 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Thank you. This is a frightening cautionary tale and brilliantly conceived and written in true Steyn-O-Mite fashion.


5 posted on 02/10/2005 5:59:46 AM PST by COUNTrecount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

All together now: "We need an exit strategy." Thank you, Dems, and your news media friends.


6 posted on 02/10/2005 6:12:52 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

bump


7 posted on 02/10/2005 6:12:58 AM PST by EricT. (Join the Soylent Green Party...We recycle dead environmentalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; Forgiven_Sinner; Constitution Day; Eurotwit; free me; Tolik; Slings and Arrows; Cicero; ...
Thanks for the Q-Flueless Steyn post.

FMCDH(BITS)

8 posted on 02/10/2005 6:14:05 AM PST by nothingnew (CNN REPORT: Judge says ready to sit for 6 month Jackson trial: God help us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

I don't understand the Tories. Are they simply trying to be different than Blair?

If Bill Clinton had taken strong action against Iraq in the mid-90s, I would have supported it. However, his weak responses to attacks on the WTC, the Cole, etc have simply confirmed that he didn't have a vision - he simply reacted to public opinion.

Bush is a leader with vision. Blair and Howard at least recognize this, and they may have vision themselves (but may lack the means that America has).

I think the Tories need to realize that if you have a good leader, he doesn't have to be defeated. Working with Blair will be to their benefit in the long run.


9 posted on 02/10/2005 6:16:22 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

We have an exit strategy.

Kill them till they stop trying to kill us. That is what war is about.


10 posted on 02/10/2005 6:20:59 AM PST by redgolum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

bump


11 posted on 02/10/2005 6:25:58 AM PST by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

FDR's exit strategy for WW2 is almost upon us - we will soon, finally be leaving Japan and Europe, right on schedule, at the end of hostilities...


12 posted on 02/10/2005 6:29:12 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Doug Hurd, fast becoming the Ted Kennedy of the Tories

I refuse to believe anyone can be more of the consummate,fat, bloated bureaucrat than what Jabba the Ted is.

13 posted on 02/10/2005 6:30:47 AM PST by Brett66 (W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

A most insightful Steyn article. Thanks, Pokey.


14 posted on 02/10/2005 6:31:49 AM PST by RottiBiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

<< This crowd are all supposedly, to one degree or another, conservatives. So am I. Clearly, one of us has got the wrong end of the stick. >>

Stay the course, Mr Steyn!

For as you well know, there are of course no conservatives in once-great Britain -- and never have been.

Only stuck-in-the-eighteenth-and-nineteenth-centuries delusionally-fantasizing bovver-girly-boyish once-great-british walking dead and other craven fasciSSocialist lites, whose recent 'great achievments' include sacrificing life and limb in defense of South Atlantic rocks while simultaneously surrendering the nation's very sovereignty to Brussels' bureaucrats -- and the millions of Hong Kong's once-FRee Peoples into medieval slavery.

And who otherwise but quibble with the various other kinds of fasciSSocialists about who should carve up and dollup out the pork.

Thanks for the ping, Pokes.


15 posted on 02/10/2005 6:35:51 AM PST by Brian Allen (I fly and can therefore be envious of no man -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Another brilliantly written article by Steyn.

I disagree entirely with this bit though,

"not only are there going to be a lot more Muslims but those Muslims are likely to be much more radical"

Most of the Muslims I know in London go to pubs, cinemas and football matches. They go out with girls from different backgrounds and they still go to Mosque, every now and then. Though their parents and Grandparents came to England with stiffened religious resolve, the new generation have been assimilated by our culture, they've moved on.

Suggesting that 'they're' going to get more radical, reminds me of the attitude to blacks in south London in the 1980's.


16 posted on 02/10/2005 6:37:27 AM PST by Slipperduke (Stuck in a strip-lit hellhole, but not for long...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It is rare that I would even consider changing a word of the master...but here is one.

It’s no coincidence that the region of the world that causes the most trouble for the rest is the one the Western European imperialists stayed in just long enough to screw up but not long enough to do any good in.

We can argue over whether America was imperialist towards say Latin America or maybe the Phillipines (I would strongly disagree with that, but I recognize an argument could be made) but the Arab world was all Europe. At least until Americans discovered oil there after the Euros screwed it up.

17 posted on 02/10/2005 6:38:12 AM PST by blanknoone (Steyn: "The Dems are all exit and no strategy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It’s no coincidence that the region of the world that causes the most trouble for the rest is the one the Western imperialists stayed in just long enough to screw up but not long enough to do any good in.

Steyn is truly a gifted writer. Thanks Poke.

18 posted on 02/10/2005 6:41:03 AM PST by 1john2 3and4 (Where were all the celebrity "Human Shields" for Iraq when they were NEEDED?(Sunday's Election))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Is there no "post a pic" rule for Steyn??
Because I gotta tell ya..
I got it bad..

You, know...
that cardiac heartbroke thing..


19 posted on 02/10/2005 6:41:29 AM PST by wildehunt (follow those hounds..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd; Pokey78

<< I don't understand the Tories. Are they simply trying to be different than Blair? >>

It's way worse than that.

Remember it is the bloody Tories who created most of the world's problems and that -- despite that the execrable Blair lacks the courage to do anything about his awful [Domestic] inheritance -- and is in any case organically/ideologically inclined to continue the surrender of once-great-Britain's sovereignty and to thus further Judeo-Christian/Western Civilization's demise -- Blair but took over from where the craven 'Conservatives' left off.

<< .... one reason the [World] is in the mess it’s in is that .... fag-end British imperialism was too fainthearted to inculcate British ‘nation-building’ values .... but still arrogant enough to complicate .... politics, impose weak outside emirs as their kings, elevate minority groups into the ruling class — and then scram. It’s no coincidence that the region of the world that causes the most trouble for the rest is the one the Western imperialists stayed in just long enough to screw up but not long enough to do any good in. >>

First the world -- and now the home islands!


20 posted on 02/10/2005 6:56:49 AM PST by Brian Allen (I fly and can therefore be envious of no man -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Steyn seems to be the focus of wisdom among journalists.


21 posted on 02/10/2005 6:57:20 AM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

BTTT


22 posted on 02/10/2005 6:59:58 AM PST by spodefly (Yo, homey ... Is that my briefcase?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone; Pokey78

<< It is rare that I would even consider changing a word of the master...but here is one.

It’s no coincidence that the region of the world that causes the most trouble for the rest is the one the Western European imperialists stayed in just long enough to screw up but not long enough to do any good in. >>

Excellent point -- and now they're staying home and have done it to themselves!

Have, in fact, done themselves in.

Sow?

Reap?

Anyone?


23 posted on 02/10/2005 7:00:42 AM PST by Brian Allen (I fly and can therefore be envious of no man -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: All

"languid, limp toff complacency isn’t going to cut it."

- love that phrase!


24 posted on 02/10/2005 7:03:43 AM PST by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

bookmarked.


Steyn is such a great educator. I hope those who call themselves conservatives in the UK start to buy a clue! According to Steyn's comments it would seem that they are stuck in what we used to call a 'country club republican' time warp.

Isn't it rich that his name was on the cover of the Spectator coupled with the words "Bush" and "triumph." And the editors obviously thought they were slamming both men!


25 posted on 02/10/2005 7:06:13 AM PST by maica (Ask a Dem: "When did promoting Democracy and Freedom in the World become a Bad Thing??")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Thanks Pokey!!!


26 posted on 02/10/2005 7:07:05 AM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

WOW Steyn is SMOKING! This one's getting bookmarked.


27 posted on 02/10/2005 7:20:43 AM PST by lawgirl (Proud 2 time voter for George W. Bush as of 7:21 AM CST, November 2, 2004. LUVYA DUBYA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; PhilDragoo; Happy2BMe; devolve; yall


From the article:

That’s the seven eighths of the iceberg that the war’s really about: there are more Muslims, and more of those Muslims are radicalised. That doesn’t mean they all want to graduate to the top eighth and fly planes into skyscrapers or release a dirty nuke in Birmingham, but it does indicate that if you’re cooking up a scheme along those lines, you’ve got a much bigger talent pool to draw on — and that at a certain point they won’t need to release dirty nukes, because Islamification will be so advanced that many countries will simply find a way to accommodate it. Look at Holland, where Theo van Gogh’s fellow film-makers reacted to his murder by cancelling the screening of his picture and scheduling some Muslim propaganda flicks. Are these people likely to show any more backbone in 20 years’ time, when Europe’s cities are even more Islamic and even more radically Islamic?

Right now, Bush is the only strategic game in town. He intends to change, by one means or another, the problem regimes in the Middle East — which is almost all of them — and shrivel their ideological exports. It’s an ambitious strategy, but so far it’s working out, and at a level of casualties that any previous generation, in Britain or America, would have recognised as the lowest in history. Maybe the Tory nay-sayers have a better idea, but, if not, elegant, languid, limp toff complacency isn’t going to cut it. British Conservatives should get on side, before there’s nothing left to conserve.


bump! bump! bump!


28 posted on 02/10/2005 7:24:22 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Thanks for the ping.


29 posted on 02/10/2005 7:26:59 AM PST by GOPJ (Jacksonville and the NFL did us proud. Thanks for a great show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kidd

The Tories are the equivalent of our Democrat Party under Howard's leadership. The war is unpopular in Britian. Initially supportive, Tories saw a chance to capitalize on bad news and ran with it at the cost of a unified nation during war. Sound familiar? Hence my disgust of Howard's Tories. When they decide to return to Thatcher or Churchill, I'll take note. Until then Blair is the only one that seems to have an understanding of the necessity of this war in a position to make a difference, and the courage to remain committed even against public opposition, coming elections, pressure by those in his own party, opposition of Howard and the rags united agaist him.


30 posted on 02/10/2005 7:30:25 AM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

flagging for later


31 posted on 02/10/2005 7:34:07 AM PST by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Excellent Steyn. As usual.


32 posted on 02/10/2005 7:38:05 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("I speak Spanish to God, French to women, English to men, and Japanese to my horse."-Buckaroo Banzai)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Finally, someone to blame. Here's a rallying point for conspiracy nuts in the ME who need an excuse to buy democracy. The old mess is not Islamic fault -- let's join hands and fix the mess caused by the Brits. In the war of ideas, and as ideas go, this one's not half bad:

Lord Hurd evidently thinks ‘nation-building’ is utopian hooey. Maybe it is. But one reason the region is in the mess it’s in is that, in 1922, fag-end British imperialism was too fainthearted to inculcate British ‘nation-building’ values (as in India) but still arrogant enough to complicate their politics, impose weak outside emirs as their kings, elevate minority groups into the ruling class — and then scram. It’s no coincidence that the region of the world that causes the most trouble for the rest is the one the Western imperialists stayed in just long enough to screw up but not long enough to do any good in.

33 posted on 02/10/2005 7:38:09 AM PST by GOPJ (Jacksonville and the NFL did us proud. Thanks for a great show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Steyn is always a good read, but this column is particular important.

What it says about the iceberg is, I'm afraid, right on the mark.

What it says about the Tories is also on the mark. What's the matter with the Tories? They have no energy, no hopes, no ideas, no principles. They just want another term in office so they can enjoy the perks.

Since 1914, the only worthwhile Tories among a long string of losers have been Winston Churchill and Maggie Thatcher. The rest were all effete, intelligent but clueless has-beens. There isn't a decent leader in sight among the whole lot of them. John Major tossed Maggie Thatcher out, and it's been downhill ever since.

Not much hope from Labour, either, unfortunately. Tony Blair is a very mixed bag with dreadful domestic policies, and it's not clear whether he will be able to stay the course. He managed, barely, to rally the party behind him once, but it's not clear that he could do it again.


34 posted on 02/10/2005 7:49:31 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Amen!


35 posted on 02/10/2005 7:53:49 AM PST by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

Hey, you missed out the part about us being "the Euro-peons' (sic) Neo-Soviet's squalidly fasciSSocialistic off-shore satellite state"!

Your pre-packaged rant seems to have declined slightly in quality since the last time you put it into practice- although I do love your discovery of the rhetorical uses of the word 'bovver'; So very this season, don't you think?

Carry on the good work old chap.


36 posted on 02/10/2005 7:55:36 AM PST by Ed Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Thanks for the ping, Pokey! Another great and thought-provoking article from the master wordsmith.


37 posted on 02/10/2005 8:01:20 AM PST by alwaysconservative (Dean as chairman of the DNC: who says God doesn't have a sense of humor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slipperduke

Muslim MEN, what about the women??? aNd what about Abu Hamza?


38 posted on 02/10/2005 8:21:11 AM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
We can argue over whether America was imperialist towards say Latin America or maybe the Phillipines (I would strongly disagree with that, but I recognize an argument could be made) but the Arab world was all Europe. THe Arab world wasn't colonized by the Europeans -- it was part of the Turkish Empire until the end of WWI and then it was under mandates for 30 years. tHey were already screwed up. The Euros with their mish-mash of borders cutting across tribal lines in Africa screwed up THAT continent, that's true but not the Middle East, except for Iraq which was a British creation and shouldnt' have been ONE country in the first place, it was made up of 3 distinct Ottoman provinces just because the Brits wanted the oil rich north (Kurdish) and south (Shia Arab) part and the middle (Sunni) part was the joining sector.
39 posted on 02/10/2005 8:23:53 AM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount
...written in true Steyn-O-Mite fashion...

Steyn is so good that FReepers have pretty much worn out the standard superlatives. You have to get creative to laude his talent in a way that hasn't been done a thousand times before.

40 posted on 02/10/2005 8:36:26 AM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Come on, Abu Hamza is just the bogeyman of the moment. The tabloids had Winston Silcott in the 80's when they wanted to demonise the blacks and now they've got Abu to get us all quaking in our boots about Muslims. Once they've got us all good and scared of the hook-handed monster, we'll all sign up for ID cards and phone tapping.

*newsflash*

This Englishman is not scared of a one-eyed crank, with an odd line in anti-semetic bilge that's been done and redone by racists down through the generations. Sweet Jesus, the man's one step away from waving copies of the Protocols of Zion in the air at his meetings and claiming that Jews run the world! He's a joke!

He's got minimal support from the UK Muslim population, bar a rag-tag bunch of social misfits who hang on every one of bile-covered words. The vast majority are just embarrased by him. He sets us all back years.

I really don't understand why people are so happy to disregard the US Mainstream Media as rubbish, but happily take every UK tabloid and claim it as gospel!

And as far as women go, one woman of Muslim descent is sat about five foot away from me now, beavering away on a marketing project. She's five foot four, has big brown eyes and is wearing a very nice little black skirt. I'm very much looking forward to going to the pub with her after work.

*gets off soapbox*


41 posted on 02/10/2005 8:42:47 AM PST by Slipperduke (Stuck in a strip-lit hellhole, but not for long...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Slipperduke
And as far as women go, one woman of Muslim descent is sat about five foot away from me now, beavering away on a marketing project. She's five foot four, has big brown eyes and is wearing a very nice little black skirt. I'm very much looking forward to going to the pub with her after work.

I must say, I find that hard to believe. While I've seen a few Indian lads and laddettes around, I've yet to see a Muslime lady in a pub. But then again, I don't go pub-hopping in London frequently -- I'm guessing that's where you're based.
42 posted on 02/10/2005 8:45:57 AM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
THe Arab world wasn't colonized by the Europeans

And I didn't say it was. I, and Steyn, said that the Europeans behaved imperialistically. While colonization is imperialist, it is entirely possible to be imperialist without colonialist. The Europeans were imperialist towards the middle east. Even your claim that the Euros just adopted Ottoman borders is pretty bogus...for instance mashing the three provinces into Iraq. But it goes beyond borders...for instance the Brits installing foreign Hashemite (Arabian) dynasties in Iraq and Jordan.

43 posted on 02/10/2005 8:52:11 AM PST by blanknoone (Steyn: "The Dems are all exit and no strategy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

And from another brilliant Steyn piece: Democrats are all exit and no strategy.


44 posted on 02/10/2005 8:52:23 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Slipperduke
Most of the Muslims I know in London go to pubs, cinemas and football matches.

Hmmm -- I lived in East Ham in London for about a year and a half. There are definitely a lot of radical, aggressive Muslims in that area of London. Where do you live?

45 posted on 02/10/2005 8:55:03 AM PST by servantoftheservant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Slipperduke

Hear hear. Nothing to add, but I agree completely. Well said.


46 posted on 02/10/2005 8:56:30 AM PST by Ed Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The Indians do seem to have picked up the pub thing a lot quicker, but things are beginning to change. There's more Muslims/Muslim descendents in Levis than in Hajabs, it seems.

But yes, I concede that living in London could have a lot to do with it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I know Hamza is bonkers, I know that there are small sects of Muslims plotting as we speak. But remember the old agage, "Napoleon couldn't conquer Russia, but McDonalds took it in a matter of days."

Capitalism, Liberty and Freedom will always offer more than hate politics. Eventually, the Mad Mullah and his like will be swept away like the irrelevant detritus that they really are.


47 posted on 02/10/2005 8:58:10 AM PST by Slipperduke (Stuck in a strip-lit hellhole, but not for long...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Ooh, you found and posted the WHOLE THING!

Good on you; thanks!

Dan


48 posted on 02/10/2005 8:58:51 AM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servantoftheservant

For what it's worth, I'm in Cambridge and Gloucester and the Muslims I know are certainly not radical in any way- Hell, I'm meeting a Muslim friend of Pakistani descent down the pub tonight.

While several other Muslims I know don't drink (and fair enough), they are no less integrated into general society then anyone else is.


49 posted on 02/10/2005 9:00:47 AM PST by Ed Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: servantoftheservant

I live in North London, work in South East London and have lived in East London and South London.

Funniest thing I ever saw was a Muslim shop keeper in Leytonstone (about 2miles from East Ham) being fairly brisk with a couple of Eastern European kids. As soon as they left he turned to me and said, "Bloody immigrants! They come over here, they've got no money and they can't even be bothered to learn the language!"


50 posted on 02/10/2005 9:01:40 AM PST by Slipperduke (Stuck in a strip-lit hellhole, but not for long...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson