Straight from the Horses orifice..........
POSTED BY: BarnStormer
UPDATED: Saturday, July 30, 2005 06:30
VIEWED: 3356
PAGE 3 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
We seem to have drifted way off topic here.
When I started this thread, I was pointing out that one of those compasionate clerics in Britian actually said he was doing evil deeds.
Slip of the tongue? Or not?
I just thought it was funny, in a not very funny sort of way.
Fair enough. To be honest there seems to be alot of stories like this in the press/media at the moment, and rather than kick them out of the country the goverment gives them legal aid to fight their case to stay here, thousands of pounds in living expenses, brand new cars that the majority of the population couldn't afford, all while they spout hatred for Britain and its people.
These people (IMHO) are dangerous sick arseholes.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BarnStormer, the full quote you gave us was:
"After all, I could worship God here, I could worship God back in Lebanon. I could do evil here, I could do that back in a Muslim country."
In that context it's a little different. He's trying to come off all philosophical and pious. English is not his first language, but I think he managed to make himself a little clearer than you give him credit for. This guy's a preacher. It's the same as Billy Graham telling us that he's a sinner. "I can walk in righteousness or I can do the work of the devil no matter where on the planet I reside." That sort of thing. Rhetoric.
And just to be clear, I don't approve of this guy. He admires the hijackers from 9/11. That to me is an evil sentiment. His oppinions are disgusting and hateful.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I mistook HK’s question for a sincere one. It turns out that he may have just been looking for some reason to throw a fit. And things are just too busy right now to sift through all that.
Originally posted by fivver:
Actually HK, Finn is asking some very cogent questions. Ones you seem unwilling or unable to deal with. And while I agree with you that the Hitler analogy is used way too often in this case it's apt. In the 1930s England and France were the military powers on the planet. The German military was crippled by the treaty of Versailles (sp?). When Hitler came to power he ignored the treaty and rearmed - kind of like Saddam's ignoring the UN resolutions. England and France did nothing. When Hitler occupied Poland again England and France did nothing except delude themselves that would appease Hitler and bring 'peace in our time'. We all know how well that worked.
I'd like to echo Finn's questions. Once we've pulled our forces out of the Mideaset do we sell the people of Afghanistan and Iraq back into slavery and allow Israel to be destroyed? And HK do you really think it will stop there?
Concerning appeasement:
Many believe (perhaps correctly) that if the US withdrew its military presence from the Middle East then the terrorism would abate at least temporarily. (In fact HK, actually posted something concerning a US Congressmen making such assertions.) It is superficially an attractive proposition, but I hope that people think this through a little more carefully then perhaps some have. This is, in fact, appeasement, and it will likely not work for a variety of reasons. The Middle East is just not stable enough to stand on its own. It hasn’t been since at least the dissolution of the British mandates and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Both the US and the UK have allies and interest in the Middle East that I don’t think they can ignore forever. And in the end, I don’t think the terrorism will stop. Terrorists are notorious for finding reasons to justify their work.
Concerning the appeasement of Germany:
As far as your example of Germany, it is a keen one, but Poland was actually the line in the sand, where Britain and France finally took action in 1939. The appeasement of Hitler actually begin in 1936 when Hitler reoccupied the demilitarized Rhineland, which was a direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles and essentially ignored by both Britain and France in much the same way that the UN ignored repeated violations of Security Council resolutions by Iraq. It went much further though when Hitler demanded that he be allowed to annex Sudentenland, which was a part of Czechoslovakia. Britain and France actually strong-armed the Czechs into accepting that deal. Later Hitler invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia and Austria, which once again, the British and the French ignored. Finally with the invasion of Poland, Britain and France declared war on Hitler. The real irony though is that in 1936, when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, Germany did not have the military power to even defend that small region of land, much less wage a war with France and Britain. As such, German troops were ordered to withdraw, should France send troops into defend the T. of Versailles. This is the real failure of appeasement, not only did it fail to prevent a war, but it actually gave Hitler time to construct an army capable of defeating most of Europe. So it is a strong argument for a hard-line position on aggressive dictatorships, of which Iraq was definitely one.
Concerning the extent of US military presence in the Middle East:
This is actually quite recent, just since the Gulf war and we were actually there, as barnstormer indicated, at the request of the Kuwaitis and the Saudis, largely to act as a counterweight to Iraqi aggression. And one of the motivations that was suggested for the war in Iraq was that if Hussein were eliminated and Iraq were pacified then the US would no longer need permanent military bases in the Middle East. This is a sound argument
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME