Posted on 02/10/2005 5:51:09 AM PST by Pokey78
Steyn seems to be the focus of wisdom among journalists.
BTTT
<< 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?
"languid, limp toff complacency isn’t going to cut it."
- love that phrase!
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!
Thanks Pokey!!!
WOW Steyn is SMOKING! This one's getting bookmarked.
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!
Thanks for the ping.
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.
flagging for later
Excellent Steyn. As usual.
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.
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.
Amen!
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.
Thanks for the ping, Pokey! Another great and thought-provoking article from the master wordsmith.
Muslim MEN, what about the women??? aNd what about Abu Hamza?
...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.
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.