Replies

an argument that would be more persuasive if so many of the trouble spots currently requiring America's attention weren't assisted on their path to chronic dysfunctionalism by the wise old birds of British imperialism (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan).

Bears repeating.

And don't even get me started on the messes the French have left behind.

<< .... an argument that would be more persuasive if so many of the trouble spots currently requiring America's attention weren't assisted on their path to chronic dysfunctionalism by the "wise old birds" of British imperialism. [Just for starters: -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan]

Scratch an anywhere-in-the-world problem and find the corrupt and/or murderous surrogate detritus of once-great-british and/or other dead-and-decadent euro-peon failure!

<< "Among the alternatives Tories ... are floating in private are "the Democrats," the "New Democrats" and "Progress."

The first is the name of the US Left-of-centre party, the second is the Canadian socialist party, and the third .... carries the vague whiff of a 1930s Mitteleuropean fascist movement.

Given that the Tories' identity is notable mainly by its absence, wouldn't it be easiest just to change the name to the Not The Conservative Party? >>

Thus does Mr Steyn succinctly synopsize all that is rotten -- and not just with Howards tories [For the great majority of Blair's Socialists are far more rotten that Howard's drivilling dribling dopes!] -- in once-great british politics.

As for a new name for that sorry supercilious shower of ... um ... losers?

How's about the incrementalist-socialists?

Thanks for the ping, Pokes.

BUMPping

an argument that would be more persuasive if so many of the trouble spots currently requiring America's attention weren't assisted on their path to chronic dysfunctionalism by the wise old birds of British imperialism (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan).

That's a very glib thing to say if you consider that three quarters of the globe was at some time under British control. And, leaving aside such issues as whether the British Empire was a civilising influence or otherwise, whether these now "chronically dysfunctional" countries were havens of enlightenment and tolerance before being brutally crushed by British Imperial Fascists, what exactly is his point here? Is he saying that these countries are in the mess they are in now as a result of British non-interventionism? Or is he talking out of his arse? If he wants to make such comparisons he should wait another four hundred years for the effects of current American foreign policy to fully develop.