Posted on 08/09/2015 9:20:26 AM PDT by bob_denard
We’re sowing quite a lot in this country.
Definitely not! It's in the DNA - hundreds of years of in-breeding.
That is an enormous question mark. One would think that the British reaction would be swift, and most severe. But Cameron is not Churchill.
Churchill would have destroyed ISIS. But Cameron...perhaps a few punitive raids would have to do. And does today's Britain even have the resources to do more? At any rate, it is a terrible thing to consider.
http://www.bartleby.com/246/1128.html
“Fuzzy-Wuzzy”
Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936)
Soudan Expeditionary Force
WE ’VE fought with many men acrost the seas,
An’ some of ’em was brave an’ some was not,
The Paythan an’ the Zulu an’ Burmese;
But the Fuzzy was the finest o’ the lot.
We never got a ha’porth’s change of ’im: 5
’E squatted in the scrub an’ ’ocked our ’orses,
’E cut our sentries up at Suakim,
An’ ’e played the cat an’ banjo with our forces.
So ’ere ’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your ’ome in the Soudan;
You ’re a pore benighted ’eathen but a first-class fightin’ man; 10
We gives you your certificate, an’ if you want it signed
We ’ll come an’ ’ave a romp with you whenever you ’re inclined.
We took our chanst among the Kyber ’ills,
The Boers knocked us silly at a mile,
The Burman give us Irriwaddy chills, 15
An’ a Zulu impi dished us up in style:
But all we ever got from such as they
Was pop to what the Fuzzy made us swaller;
We ’eld our bloomin’ own, the papers say,
But man for man the Fuzzy knocked us ’oller. 20
Then ’ere ’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an’ the missis and the kid;
Our orders was to break you, an’ of course we went an’ did.
We sloshed you with Martinis, an’ it was n’t ’ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin’ you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square.
’E ’as n’t got no papers of ’is own, 25
’E ’as n’t got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill ’e ’s shown
In usin’ of ’is long two-’anded swords:
When ’e ’s ’oppin’ in an’ out among the bush
With ’is coffin-’eaded shield an’ shovel-spear, 30
An ’appy day with Fuzzy on the rush
Will last an ’ealthy Tommy for a year.
So ’ere ’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an’ your friends which are no more,
If we ’ad n’t lost some messmates we would ’elp you to deplore;
But give an’ take ’s the gospel, an’ we ’ll call the bargain fair, 35
For if you ’ave lost more than us, you crumpled up the square!
’E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An’, before we know, ’e ’s ’ackin’ at our ’ead;
’E ’s all ’ot sand an’ ginger when alive,
An’ ’e ’s generally shammin’ when ’e ’s dead. 40
’E ’s a daisy, ’e ’s a ducky, ’e ’s a lamb!
’E ’s a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
’E ’s the on’y thing that does n’t give a damn
For a Regiment o’ British Infantree!
So ’ere ’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your ’ome in the Soudan; 45
You ’re a pore benighted ’eathen but a first-class fightin’ man;
An’ ’ere ’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, with your ’ayrick ’ead of ’air—
You big black boundin’ beggar—for you broke a British square!
For heaven sake, people. The target would be Queen Elizabeth and how is she responsible for what the politicians have done TO THE U.K.?
The RAF does not possess a single bomber.
“I’ve always loved Kipling.”
I wouldn’t know, I’ve never kippled. (old joke but still gives me a chuckle)
Why? Formerly-Great Britain is the greatest friend of Jihad in the West. That formerly-manly society is bending over and taking jihad like a twenty-dollar hooker in East St. Louis. Q.E. is doing exactly NOTHING to oppose Islam.
:p ;)
You make a very good point. I get that the British monarch is supposed to reign, and not rule. But there has to be a point where the monarch says "Oh, hell no." IMHO Britain is nearing that point, if not already there.
If the monarch will not speak when the nation's very identity is at stake, then there is no point in even having a monarch.
Yes, and it isn't true. The Prince of Wales is a fairly devout Christian - and one of the few Christian leaders in the Western World to have publically spoken out about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East in recent years. You probably didn't hear that though, as the media gave very little coverage to the speech.
He's no friend to radical Islam, although he treats those who have no violent intentions with respect.
I've known the Prince for nearly fifty years now, and I've been his friend in more recent times. I find the caricature of him that has been created in the media rather distressing. It happens largely because so much of the media likes to lampoon anybody who is conservatively inclined and to try to turn them into a joke - and with the Prince, for some reason, they've done a good job of it, with the use of carefully selected photos out of the thousands that have been taken of him, and carefully selecting little soundbites out of speeches that remove all context. He'd fit in quite well here on Freerepublic if you ignore his environmentalism - that's the one big issue on which he doesn't align with conservative thought, but on most issues he does.
If the monarch will not speak when the nation's very identity is at stake, then there is no point in even having a monarch.
The Queen can only intervene in anything approaching a public way if Parliament is acting outside the terms of the British constitution. They're not, so she cannot publically intervene.
But that doesn't mean she isn't doing anything. In private, the Queen has the right to be informed about government policy, to be consulted about government policy, to encourage the government, and to warn the government. There are almost certainly matters that British governments have chosen not to present to Parliament because the Queen told them that if they were presented, she would act - and that includes matters relevant to this type of discussion. But convention means that nobody publicises this. It is private.
If a public conflict ever developed between the Queen and Parliament, Parliament would be likely to win, because that is the way the system is deliberately balanced in modern times, unless the Parliament was acting outside of the constitution. Her Majesty exerts influence behind the scenes for that reason, and while we may not see it directly, without it, Britain would be a different place than it is today. Tony Blair would have disestablished the Church of England. Britain would be on the Euro with the pound abolished. And those are just two of the most obvious differences.
The Queen has to work within the limits laid down by constitutional convention. And she does.
But there must come a time when the monarch speaks out publicly against a rot that threatens the nation. I'm not talking about taking extreme action to close Parliament or anything like that. My hope is just that the monarch would speak out publicly, in measured tones, in an attempt to change the country's direction.
Perhaps Britain is not at that critical point, yet. Or perhaps, as a Yank, I'm being too hopeful as to what any monarch would be willing to do. At any rate, thanks again for your informative reply.
She can't - not if it could be seen as opposing "Her Majesty's Government."
Virtually every speech the Queen makes has to be approved by the government. Most of the time, somebody in the government actually writes them for her, but even when she does write a speech herself, it has to be approved. The only exception to this is her Christmas message every year - by convention, the government rarely intervenes on that one speech, which she does write herself. And as it is a Christmas message, it generally does focus on Christian ideals to a great extent.
Perhaps Britain is not at that critical point, yet. Or perhaps, as a Yank, I'm being too hopeful as to what any monarch would be willing to do. At any rate, thanks again for your informative reply.
I don't think Britain is anywhere near that point yet. I'm over there a couple of times a year (I have joint Australian-British citizenship, but I live most of the year in Australia) and I think a lot of Americans have an exaggerated idea about the influence of Islam in the UK - it's larger than it used to be, but it's still very limited. There are some areas of London, and a few other large cities, which are very heavily Muslim, but the country as a whole is nothing like that. 13 out of the 650 MPs in the House of Commons are Muslim - 2% - that really reflects the type of influence Islam has on British public life, and those 2% are not particularly radical.
Good to hear, especially since he would be the nominal head of The Church of England if he ascended to the throne.
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.