By Andrew C. McCarthy, from the National Review
This is a war of will.
Very true, and we don't seem to have that will!
If we lose it, the historians will marvel at how mulishly we resisted understanding the one thing we needed to understand in order to win. The enemy.
Yes, someone who understands!
In Iraq, we've tried to fight the most civilized light footprint war of all time. We made sure everyone knew our beef was only with Saddam Hussein, as if he were a one-man militia no Sunni Baathists supporting him, no Arab terrorists colluding, and no Shiite jihadists hating us just on principle. No, our war was only with the regime. No need to fight the Iraqis. They, after all, were noble. They would flock to democracy if only they had the chance. And, once they hailed us as conquering heroes, their oil wealth would pay for the whole thing just 400 billion American dollars ago.
Well, lets stop kidding ourselves! Either we throw this away, or we fight it properly, but Ibelieveleive, there is no longer any way for us to win this, not because we can't, but because I can't see that we can stomach the fight ahead! Churchill gassed rebellious Iraqis, would you accept that? Could you?
For (Mohammedans), the president's euphonious rhetoric about democratic empowerment is offensive. They believe, sincerely, that authority to rule comes not from the people but from Allah; that there is no separation of religion and politics; that free people do not have authority to legislate contrary to Islamic law; that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and men to women; and that violent jihad is a duty whenever Muslims deem themselves under attack no matter how speciously. These people are not morons.
I think this is something we should all accept, these people attacking us are not dumb, not Arab versions of 'hicks' or 'country bumpkins', they are for the most part educated men, men with a strong faith in Allah and Mohammeds commanoffensivefensive as that religion may be, this is whabelievebeleive and many prbelievebeleive quite sincerely!
Democratizing such cultures in anything we would recognize as democracy is the work of generations. It is a cultural phenomenon. It is not accomplished by elections and facile constitution writing especially, constitutions that shun Madisonian democracy for the State Department's preferred establishment of Islam and its adhesive sharia law as the state religion. Elections, in fact, play to the strengths of Islamic terrorists. Jihadists are confident, intimidating, and rigorously disciplined. They are thus certain to thrive in the chaos of nascent democracies. Consequently, it should be unsurprising to anyone with a shred of common sense that terrorist organizations are ascendant in the new governments of Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
This is the truth, Islam and Islamic culture is incompatable with freedom or democracy, the only relatively stable Islamic nations are authoritarian monarchies, Morocco, Jordan, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar. They should not see democracy, for when this happens, Islamists gain traction, this is true in Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc, etc...
Time to face the truth, Democracy is unpaletable even here in the West, its dead in the water in the Islamic world!
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Shariah in Britain!
From the Telegraph:
"Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.
(T)he BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London."
What the fuck Somalians are doing in this country I don't know, all they are is trouble!
"Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail."
Typical really, the police capitulate once again to an 'efnik community innit' what prats!!
"Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges."
Unless the 'victim' is alleging RACISM (gasps of horror, screaming in the distance) then the police spend millions of pounds and hundreds of hours investigating!
"However, the spokesman said cases of domestic violence, including rape, might go to trial regardless of the victim's wishes."
Yeah, like that will happen!
"Mr Yusuf told the programme he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country."
Tell you what Mr Yusuf, if that is how you feel, fuck off back to that shit hole you crawled out of!
"Sharia's great strength was the effectiveness of its penalties, he said."
I have got to give him that, our law sees punishment as torture, so you can rape and murder and at worst get 5 years inside, rob, burgle or thieve and you get off scott free!
"Some lawyers welcomed the advance of what has become known as "legal pluralism"."
Yeah, I bet they do!
"Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.
(T)he BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London."
What the fuck Somalians are doing in this country I don't know, all they are is trouble!
"Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail."
Typical really, the police capitulate once again to an 'efnik community innit' what prats!!
"Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges."
Unless the 'victim' is alleging RACISM (gasps of horror, screaming in the distance) then the police spend millions of pounds and hundreds of hours investigating!
"However, the spokesman said cases of domestic violence, including rape, might go to trial regardless of the victim's wishes."
Yeah, like that will happen!
"Mr Yusuf told the programme he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country."
Tell you what Mr Yusuf, if that is how you feel, fuck off back to that shit hole you crawled out of!
"Sharia's great strength was the effectiveness of its penalties, he said."
I have got to give him that, our law sees punishment as torture, so you can rape and murder and at worst get 5 years inside, rob, burgle or thieve and you get off scott free!
"Some lawyers welcomed the advance of what has become known as "legal pluralism"."
Yeah, I bet they do!
Monday, November 27, 2006
Blue Labour
This post is so good as to be posted in full:
From Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail, 27 November 2006
The sheer cynicism of it simply leaves you open-mouthed. Last week, the Conservative leader David Cameron committed his party to tackling relative poverty, which he defined as not having the things that better-off people take for granted.
His strategy, by now so familiar, couldn’t have been more brazen —or insulting to his party’s past. Getting rid of the Tories’ image as the ‘nasty party’ meant repositioning it as the party of compassion for the poor. To do so, he and his warm-up man, Greg Clarke, knocked Winston Churchill off his plinth as party hero and installed instead the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee as the Tories’ new icon.
As the nation variously split its sides, went into shock or simply scratched its head, the Cameroons did high fives over their brilliantly counter-intuitive coup. But in their obsession with image, they have failed to grasp that such opportunism does indeed suggest that they have hearts of stone.
For what Ms Toynbee stands for is not compassionate at all. On the contrary, what she embodies is the politics of hatred. Hatred of the middle class, hatred of men and marriage, hatred of private enterprise and profit, hatred of ordinary people whom she regularly berates as stupid, pig-headed and ungrateful —especially when they dare to hold views which differ from hers.
Of course the hypocrisy, on the part of a person who uses private education and enjoys a holiday home in Italy, is stupendous. But the really shocking thing is that Pollyism hurts most the people it purports to help — those at the bottom of the heap.
Its obsession with comprehensive education has meant that the poor, who rely absolutely on school to escape from disadvantage, have been abandoned to illiteracy and ignorance.
Its sustained attack on married parenthood has abandoned millions of children to fatherlessness and every possible disadvantage in life. The main reason why so many British children are so poor is that they are being brought up by struggling lone parents — whose explosion in numbers, according to the doctrine of Pollygamy, is a triumph of women’s liberation.
It has trapped ever more millions of people into debilitating dependency upon the state, infantilising them by robbing them of responsibility for their own lives and families. Wrapping itself in the sanctimonious mantle of progressive politics, it actually betrays the progressive ideal of social justice. Instead of encouraging the good in people and minimising the bad, it rewards the bad and punishes the good.
Indeed it is deeply reactionary, deriving from the core belief that people are fundamentally contemptible and cannot be trusted with independence, needing the superior wisdom and beneficence of the state to run their lives instead.
All this in the name of the sacred agenda of equality, which is nothing other than the politics of envy and spite. The concept of relative poverty was invented to serve that agenda. By setting the poverty benchmark as a proportion of average wealth, ‘relative poverty’ magics up increasing numbers of people deemed to be poor as the society becomes ever richer.
It is therefore the engine behind a vast and self-perpetuating poverty industry, which is in business to penalise the better-off by robbing them for money with which to control the lives of increasing numbers of people through welfare dependency.
Those who work hard are penalised for doing so; rewards go to those whose own behaviour may have accounted for their disadvantaged circumstances. The results are all around us in households which have not merely been left behind as the caravan of prosperity moves on, but which have become disastrously disengaged altogether from the basic tenets of a civilised society.
These shattered wastelands of squalor, hopelessness, misery and despair are the true legacy of the Polly Toynbee vision.
Yet it is to this social injustice — astoundingly — that the Tories have now committed themselves, with Mr Cameron’s ringing declaration that relative poverty is in his sights.
But no sooner had he said this than he veered off in a contradictory direction. Fighting relative poverty, he said, was about tackling the root causes such as family breakdown, drug and alcohol addiction, unemployment or poor education.
This is simply incoherent. Relative poverty can only tackled by income redistribution because it’s all about the gap between rich and poor. Yes, he is absolutely right that the root causes of disadvantage lie in family breakdown and other non-financial factors.
But these can only be tackled by a totally different approach: one that recognises that the welfare state is not the solution but the problem. This is because permanent poverty arises principally from the impoverishment and demoralisation of the human spirit, and the way to remedy it is thus to help change behaviour and give people control over their own destiny.
Mr Cameron pays lip service to re-introducing personal responsibility. Yet he has set his face against recasting state welfare. He is committed to the same spending on health — thus ensuring that the sick poor, who suffer most from the collapse of NHS standards, will remain trapped.
He has dismissed selection in schools, thus opposing the single most important route for poor children out of disadvantage and rejecting the meritocracy which is the very basis of a socially just society.
He will keep the Sure Start childcare programme and the tax credits system, even though Sure Start has been shown to hurt the poor and tax credits have vastly expanded the net of state dependency. Indeed, he appears to be prepared even to undermine the work ethic and weaken the economy by embracing the European 35-hour working week in his Pollyanna-ish pursuit of ‘general wellbeing’.
He is for state controlled public services but also for using the voluntary sector, which would be effectively nationalised; for tax cuts but also for public spending increases; for stable family life but also for lone parents; for a tough approach to crime but also for hugging hoodies and loving louts.
Such radical incoherence enables him to pose as a compassionate Conservative, while leaving us all in a fog about what he would actually do in office.
It is also part of his strategy to enrage traditionalists and newspapers like this one. The louder such protests, the more the Cameroons rub their hands over their ‘Clause Four’ moment in defeating their ‘dinosaurs’.
But when Tony Blair junked Labour’s Clause Four on state control and redistribution of wealth, he was binning a doctrine which ran totally against the interests of the public. Those who supported it were indeed the dinosaurs of the left, and their defeat was essential to persuade the public that never again would Labour engage in class war and frustrate people’s desire to better themselves.
In fact, Labour has indeed conducted an income redistribution by stealth and a sustained onslaught upon the middle class and its values. Yet instead of attacking this, as millions want them to do, the Tories have decided to embrace such an onslaught themselves.
Now an opinion poll suggests that Mr Cameron’s progress may be stalling. If so, this is undoubtedly because people can see through the spin. They don’t want Blue Labour; and they will never trust politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Throwing Cameroon stardust in people’s eyes may work for a while. But the British are not likely to buy a Polly in a poke. If they can vote for the organ-grinder, after all, why elect the monkey? It’s enough to make a dinosaur laugh.
From Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail, 27 November 2006
The sheer cynicism of it simply leaves you open-mouthed. Last week, the Conservative leader David Cameron committed his party to tackling relative poverty, which he defined as not having the things that better-off people take for granted.
His strategy, by now so familiar, couldn’t have been more brazen —or insulting to his party’s past. Getting rid of the Tories’ image as the ‘nasty party’ meant repositioning it as the party of compassion for the poor. To do so, he and his warm-up man, Greg Clarke, knocked Winston Churchill off his plinth as party hero and installed instead the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee as the Tories’ new icon.
As the nation variously split its sides, went into shock or simply scratched its head, the Cameroons did high fives over their brilliantly counter-intuitive coup. But in their obsession with image, they have failed to grasp that such opportunism does indeed suggest that they have hearts of stone.
For what Ms Toynbee stands for is not compassionate at all. On the contrary, what she embodies is the politics of hatred. Hatred of the middle class, hatred of men and marriage, hatred of private enterprise and profit, hatred of ordinary people whom she regularly berates as stupid, pig-headed and ungrateful —especially when they dare to hold views which differ from hers.
Of course the hypocrisy, on the part of a person who uses private education and enjoys a holiday home in Italy, is stupendous. But the really shocking thing is that Pollyism hurts most the people it purports to help — those at the bottom of the heap.
Its obsession with comprehensive education has meant that the poor, who rely absolutely on school to escape from disadvantage, have been abandoned to illiteracy and ignorance.
Its sustained attack on married parenthood has abandoned millions of children to fatherlessness and every possible disadvantage in life. The main reason why so many British children are so poor is that they are being brought up by struggling lone parents — whose explosion in numbers, according to the doctrine of Pollygamy, is a triumph of women’s liberation.
It has trapped ever more millions of people into debilitating dependency upon the state, infantilising them by robbing them of responsibility for their own lives and families. Wrapping itself in the sanctimonious mantle of progressive politics, it actually betrays the progressive ideal of social justice. Instead of encouraging the good in people and minimising the bad, it rewards the bad and punishes the good.
Indeed it is deeply reactionary, deriving from the core belief that people are fundamentally contemptible and cannot be trusted with independence, needing the superior wisdom and beneficence of the state to run their lives instead.
All this in the name of the sacred agenda of equality, which is nothing other than the politics of envy and spite. The concept of relative poverty was invented to serve that agenda. By setting the poverty benchmark as a proportion of average wealth, ‘relative poverty’ magics up increasing numbers of people deemed to be poor as the society becomes ever richer.
It is therefore the engine behind a vast and self-perpetuating poverty industry, which is in business to penalise the better-off by robbing them for money with which to control the lives of increasing numbers of people through welfare dependency.
Those who work hard are penalised for doing so; rewards go to those whose own behaviour may have accounted for their disadvantaged circumstances. The results are all around us in households which have not merely been left behind as the caravan of prosperity moves on, but which have become disastrously disengaged altogether from the basic tenets of a civilised society.
These shattered wastelands of squalor, hopelessness, misery and despair are the true legacy of the Polly Toynbee vision.
Yet it is to this social injustice — astoundingly — that the Tories have now committed themselves, with Mr Cameron’s ringing declaration that relative poverty is in his sights.
But no sooner had he said this than he veered off in a contradictory direction. Fighting relative poverty, he said, was about tackling the root causes such as family breakdown, drug and alcohol addiction, unemployment or poor education.
This is simply incoherent. Relative poverty can only tackled by income redistribution because it’s all about the gap between rich and poor. Yes, he is absolutely right that the root causes of disadvantage lie in family breakdown and other non-financial factors.
But these can only be tackled by a totally different approach: one that recognises that the welfare state is not the solution but the problem. This is because permanent poverty arises principally from the impoverishment and demoralisation of the human spirit, and the way to remedy it is thus to help change behaviour and give people control over their own destiny.
Mr Cameron pays lip service to re-introducing personal responsibility. Yet he has set his face against recasting state welfare. He is committed to the same spending on health — thus ensuring that the sick poor, who suffer most from the collapse of NHS standards, will remain trapped.
He has dismissed selection in schools, thus opposing the single most important route for poor children out of disadvantage and rejecting the meritocracy which is the very basis of a socially just society.
He will keep the Sure Start childcare programme and the tax credits system, even though Sure Start has been shown to hurt the poor and tax credits have vastly expanded the net of state dependency. Indeed, he appears to be prepared even to undermine the work ethic and weaken the economy by embracing the European 35-hour working week in his Pollyanna-ish pursuit of ‘general wellbeing’.
He is for state controlled public services but also for using the voluntary sector, which would be effectively nationalised; for tax cuts but also for public spending increases; for stable family life but also for lone parents; for a tough approach to crime but also for hugging hoodies and loving louts.
Such radical incoherence enables him to pose as a compassionate Conservative, while leaving us all in a fog about what he would actually do in office.
It is also part of his strategy to enrage traditionalists and newspapers like this one. The louder such protests, the more the Cameroons rub their hands over their ‘Clause Four’ moment in defeating their ‘dinosaurs’.
But when Tony Blair junked Labour’s Clause Four on state control and redistribution of wealth, he was binning a doctrine which ran totally against the interests of the public. Those who supported it were indeed the dinosaurs of the left, and their defeat was essential to persuade the public that never again would Labour engage in class war and frustrate people’s desire to better themselves.
In fact, Labour has indeed conducted an income redistribution by stealth and a sustained onslaught upon the middle class and its values. Yet instead of attacking this, as millions want them to do, the Tories have decided to embrace such an onslaught themselves.
Now an opinion poll suggests that Mr Cameron’s progress may be stalling. If so, this is undoubtedly because people can see through the spin. They don’t want Blue Labour; and they will never trust politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Throwing Cameroon stardust in people’s eyes may work for a while. But the British are not likely to buy a Polly in a poke. If they can vote for the organ-grinder, after all, why elect the monkey? It’s enough to make a dinosaur laugh.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Some points to make
Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch has published a list of points in answer to some of his critics, I thought that I would do the same! But unlike Spencer I've decided not to bullshit(Why is it all these learned men, criticise Islam, lay out sensible arguments, then fail to make logical conclusions based on the facts?)
1. Islam is not a race. One does not become a racist by opposing Islam.
2. I actually do wish to drive all Muslims out of the West.
3. I beleive that good Muslims are by definition wicked followers of Satan, some Muslims may be good people, but by definition are bad Muslims. The best Muslims are recovering Muslims!
4. I have said that Muslims want to kill Jews and Christians, but they would get a bigger kick out of enslaving us and taxing us.
5. Islam is inconpatable with mankind, civilisation and basic decency! FACT!
Spain is cool by the way, quite civilised, not to many Moors where I am, although the ones that are here stand out like sewage in a bed of roses!
1. Islam is not a race. One does not become a racist by opposing Islam.
2. I actually do wish to drive all Muslims out of the West.
3. I beleive that good Muslims are by definition wicked followers of Satan, some Muslims may be good people, but by definition are bad Muslims. The best Muslims are recovering Muslims!
4. I have said that Muslims want to kill Jews and Christians, but they would get a bigger kick out of enslaving us and taxing us.
5. Islam is inconpatable with mankind, civilisation and basic decency! FACT!
Spain is cool by the way, quite civilised, not to many Moors where I am, although the ones that are here stand out like sewage in a bed of roses!
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The War on Terror is over!
The bad news: We lost!
The war is over, and it is the Muslims who have won.
We may have overthrown the Taliban and Saddam, but the Taliban are back, in force, attacking our boys, wearing our resolve down(which don't take much)
Saddam may very well swing, but it no longer matters, because we have already lost Iraq. We should have flattened Fallujah when they dragged dismembered westerners throught the street, instead we allowed them weeks in which to prepare to fight us, whilst withdrawing their best.
We allowed our press to humiliate us, to commit treason, to act as propigators of enemy propaganda ie: Abu Ghraib (that was not torture!) and Guantanamo.
We condemned Israel as it fought to protect itself, we hampered their efforts and have left them looking weak and vulnerable.
Spain surrendered to Al Qaida after they were attacked, Italy left for a quiet life, and now it seems Americans have decided 3000 dead soldiers is too much!
If this is the case, then we deserve to lose. The thing about this conflict is that we can't bear death, our enemy actively seeks it out.
Only one side can win this, right now, it is not us!
From the Guardian
"One Frenchman, 53-year-old teacher Jean-Pierre Charpemtrat, said it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew.
``Americans are realizing that you can't found the politics of a country on patriotic passion and reflexes,'' he said. ``You can't fool everybody all the time - and I think that's what Bush and his administration are learning today.''
Bush is deeply unpopular in many countries, with particularly intense opposition to the war in Iraq, the U.S. terror holding facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and allegations of Washington-sanctioned interrogation methods that some equate with torture.
Many said they thought the big gains by Democrats signaled the beginning of the end of Bush's tenure.
In Copenhagen, Denmark, Jens Langfeldt, 35, said he didn't know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush, referring to the president as ``that cowboy.''
In Sri Lanka, some said they hoped the rebuke would force Bush to abandon a unilateral approach to global issues.
``The Americans have made it clear that current American policy should change in dealing with the world, from a confrontational approach, to a more consensus-based and bridge-building approach,'' said Jehan Perera, a political analyst. The Democratic win means ``there will be more control and restraint'' over U.S. foreign policy.
Passions were even higher in Pakistan, where Bush is deeply unpopular despite billions in aid and support for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
One opposition lawmaker, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, said he welcomed the election result, but was hoping for more. Bush ``deserves to be removed, put on trial and given a Saddam-like death sentence,'' he said.
In Denmark, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told broadcaster TV2 he hoped the president and the new Congress would find ``common ground on questions about Iraq and Afghanistan.''
``The world needs a vigorous U.S.A.,'' Fogh Rasmussen said.
The prospect of a sudden change in American foreign policy could also be troubling to U.S. allies such as Britain, Japan and Australia, which have thrown their support behind the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Asked whether the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, ``Well, there's certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon.''
``The problem for Arabs now is, an American withdrawal (from Iraq) could be a security disaster for the entire region,'' said Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi analyst for the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. He said the Middle East could be left to cope with a disintegrating Iraq mired in civil war, with refugees fleeing a failed state that could become an incubator for terrorism."
"One Frenchman, 53-year-old teacher Jean-Pierre Charpemtrat, said it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew.
``Americans are realizing that you can't found the politics of a country on patriotic passion and reflexes,'' he said. ``You can't fool everybody all the time - and I think that's what Bush and his administration are learning today.''
Bush is deeply unpopular in many countries, with particularly intense opposition to the war in Iraq, the U.S. terror holding facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and allegations of Washington-sanctioned interrogation methods that some equate with torture.
Many said they thought the big gains by Democrats signaled the beginning of the end of Bush's tenure.
In Copenhagen, Denmark, Jens Langfeldt, 35, said he didn't know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush, referring to the president as ``that cowboy.''
In Sri Lanka, some said they hoped the rebuke would force Bush to abandon a unilateral approach to global issues.
``The Americans have made it clear that current American policy should change in dealing with the world, from a confrontational approach, to a more consensus-based and bridge-building approach,'' said Jehan Perera, a political analyst. The Democratic win means ``there will be more control and restraint'' over U.S. foreign policy.
Passions were even higher in Pakistan, where Bush is deeply unpopular despite billions in aid and support for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
One opposition lawmaker, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, said he welcomed the election result, but was hoping for more. Bush ``deserves to be removed, put on trial and given a Saddam-like death sentence,'' he said.
In Denmark, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told broadcaster TV2 he hoped the president and the new Congress would find ``common ground on questions about Iraq and Afghanistan.''
``The world needs a vigorous U.S.A.,'' Fogh Rasmussen said.
The prospect of a sudden change in American foreign policy could also be troubling to U.S. allies such as Britain, Japan and Australia, which have thrown their support behind the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Asked whether the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, ``Well, there's certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon.''
``The problem for Arabs now is, an American withdrawal (from Iraq) could be a security disaster for the entire region,'' said Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi analyst for the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. He said the Middle East could be left to cope with a disintegrating Iraq mired in civil war, with refugees fleeing a failed state that could become an incubator for terrorism."
What happened to America?
Well, now that was unexpected!
The Democrats hold both the Senate and the House of Representatives, leaving Canada, Australia and the UK the only remaining nations fully committed to this 'war', and here I was thinking the UK would be the first to fold.
Once Blair leaves office next year, that leaves Australia as the only nation fully committed to Iraq, and Australia and Canada the only ones fuly committed to Afghanistan.
The problem with this situation, is that these nations can't hold the line by themselves, they need the US and it's armed forces, so once America leaves, then Canada and Australia must also leave. If this happens, then what country in their right mind would ever risk going to war with the US ever again?
John Howard the brilliant Australian Prime Minister, who risked going into both Afghanistan and Iraq, and who has won reelection, would be left looking like a fool, and once burned, how many other American Presidents would he support if say, we had to invade Iran or North Korea?
Or Stephen Harper, the promising new Canadian Prime Minister, who has recommitted Canada to Afghanistan, how many other military situations would he concern himself with if he is forced to abandon Afghanistan?
The Democrats lost the Vietnam war, Australia and New Zealand had also been fighting with the Americans, they left in the early seventies when it became obvious that the Democrats had already abandoned Vietnam to the communists.
Being burned once is bad enough, being burned twice may leave the Anglosphere terminally fractured!
The Democrats hold both the Senate and the House of Representatives, leaving Canada, Australia and the UK the only remaining nations fully committed to this 'war', and here I was thinking the UK would be the first to fold.
Once Blair leaves office next year, that leaves Australia as the only nation fully committed to Iraq, and Australia and Canada the only ones fuly committed to Afghanistan.
The problem with this situation, is that these nations can't hold the line by themselves, they need the US and it's armed forces, so once America leaves, then Canada and Australia must also leave. If this happens, then what country in their right mind would ever risk going to war with the US ever again?
John Howard the brilliant Australian Prime Minister, who risked going into both Afghanistan and Iraq, and who has won reelection, would be left looking like a fool, and once burned, how many other American Presidents would he support if say, we had to invade Iran or North Korea?
Or Stephen Harper, the promising new Canadian Prime Minister, who has recommitted Canada to Afghanistan, how many other military situations would he concern himself with if he is forced to abandon Afghanistan?
The Democrats lost the Vietnam war, Australia and New Zealand had also been fighting with the Americans, they left in the early seventies when it became obvious that the Democrats had already abandoned Vietnam to the communists.
Being burned once is bad enough, being burned twice may leave the Anglosphere terminally fractured!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
