Satan doesn't wear sweaty socks

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 01/19/2002 | MATTHEW PARRIS

[Asclepius]

On this analysis Rumsfeld with his visual aids ? cages, razor-wire, manacles and sedating syringes ? is not maladroit: he?s on message. Be sure that frantic private telegrams are winging their way over the Atlantic explaining the embarrassment this is causing Mr Blair. Be equally sure where Mr Bush is putting them.

Yuh-huh.

[Shermy]

Don't necessarily disagree with his feelings. But some of the feelings are foolish. Britain can choose for itself, EU sovreignty or America. Is America pushing itself away, or is wimpy British elites? Even this "conservative" marks as important what Americans do with a few hundred al-Qaeda in Cuba. Is this kind of nonsense what he stakes the relationship upon?

Also,

1. Count times America "swung" its weight because Europe wouldn't act;

2. Does this weight-swinging benefit Europe?

3. "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse." -OBL Forget the stupid "moderate Arab opinion" stuff fella!

[AZLiberty]

America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat.

Sounds right to me.

[cinciphil]

America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat. WTF is wrong with that, the writer seems anti-American to me.

[Shermy]

"It may go to some lengths and last some time. We should hang back."

I.e., play a little role when Euro interests at play, which America protects. Quite a conveient analysis.

[Jhoffa_]

America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat.

I wish our foreign policy were that cut and dried.

Still, it sounds alot closer to someting you would hear from America or Russia than Great Britan.

And, imo Blair and the rest of the Euroweenies could learn a lesson from either or both on how to address foreign radicals.

America has simple gods and likes to keep her satan simple, too.

What's this supposed to mean?

[Ramius]

Yup. You got a problem with that? :-)

[mrfixit514]

Washington’s way of “fighting terror” is not, despite appearances, the same as Britain’s

Good. We don't need to do anything "Britain's way".

[elephantlips]

Well now, Mr. Parris of "The Times" no less has weighed in with his pithy analysis of American government. From the genric of how other Western governments, all of which have needed America to come to their rescue, will now tell us how to conduct foreign relations, to the examination of how terrorists should look and conduct themselves, we have been set straight. America has always been slow to enter into foreign lands and commit themselves to war. We were pushed rather strenuously by Mr. Churchill to join the British and others to fend off Hitler et al. We finally entered the fro only to be chastised for our presence in Europe these many years later. Ironic, how we are sought after when the tough work needs to be done. It's alright for thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans to give of their lives on European soil but now our way of handling our enemies who have attacked America on its soil is less than acceptable to the British! Our worst treatment of POWs is better than anything the enemies of America have ever given our people. This particular enemy has already shown that it will riot and kill at the first opportunity. Now we're supposed to give them that opportunity? It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." He knew that you cannot have peace unless you are ready to wipe out your enemies, not play "paddy cake" (a British game) with them. As far as how they appear; it doesn't take much sophistication to pull the trigger on an automatic rifle and kill Americans. It doesn't take much sophistication to blow yourself and thousands of others to bits. Frankly, I rather have the more sophisticated enemies who have a sense of purpose and want to survive. I can deal with that. This insanity that passes for a third world foe is far more dangerous and should be treated that way So, go ahead, Mr. Parris, "hold back" you'll be safer that way. In the end many of the Europeans do that any way. As for me, the only "stiff upper lip" I want to see is on a dead enemy.

[TexanToTheCore]

America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat.

This is referred to as the "Texas Solution".

[elephantlips]

Well now, Mr. Parris of "The Times" no less has weighed in with his pithy analysis of American government.
From the genric of how other Western governments, all of which have needed America to come to their rescue,
will now tell us how to conduct foreign relations, to the examination of how terrorists should look and conduct themselves, we have been set straight.
America has always been slow to enter into foreign lands and commit themselves to war. We were pushed rather strenuously by Mr. Churchill to join the British and others to fend off Hitler et al.
We finally entered the fro only to be chastised for our presence in Europe these many years later. Ironic, how we are sought after when the tough work needs to be done.
It's alright for thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans to give of their lives on European soil but now our way of handling our enemies who have attacked America on its soil is less than acceptable to the British!
Our worst treatment of POWs is better than anything the enemies of America have ever given our people.
This particular enemy has already shown that it will riot and kill at the first opportunity. Now we're supposed to give them that opportunity?
It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." He knew that you cannot have peace unless you are ready to wipe out your enemies,
not play "paddy cake" (a British game) with them. As far as how they appear; it doesn't take much sophistication to pull the trigger on an automatic rifle and kill Americans.
It doesn't take much sophistication to blow yourself and thousands of others to bits. Frankly, I'd rather have the more sophisticated enemies who have a sense of purpose and want to survive.
I can deal with that. This insanity that passes for a third world foe is far more dangerous and should be treated that way
So, go ahead, Mr. Parris, "hold back" you'll be safer that way. In the end many of the Europeans do that any way. As for me, the only "stiff upper lip" I want to see is on a dead enemy.

[hoot2]

"But their help will be given ex gratia and its terms dictated by them. America will save the planet if America must,
and it will pay the piper: but it will then call the tune. A negotiated process of cooperation is not what America has in mind. "

you should begin with, "once upon a time...." n end with "they lived happily ever after"
we don't tell arafat what to do, what bombs to buy....,
we don't tell south america what to do, when we forgive billions of $$$ debt...
n we sure as hell don't tell the u.n. what to do with the $$$ they demand from us...
this could turn into a book....

[Cachelot]

Satan doesn't wear sweaty socks

Actually, doesn't he wear ONE sweaty sock and one horseshoe?

[another cricket]

We seek to project the message that there are rules to which all nations are subject. America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you’re dead meat.

Not to throw stones or anything but the UK has been dealing with the IRA for how long now? And the progress has been?

Let's face it; before you can sit down and have a calm discussion about how there are rules you first have to get the other side to stop shooting at you. To do that you have to get their attention.

We will win their hearts and minds later. Right now we have to stop them from trying to kill us.

A. Cricket

[hoot2]

"British dreams of a transatlantic marriage..."
britian doesn't exist any more...its "euro now...

"The United States was running her own clear policy in Southern Africa... "
the "communist party" thru the "congressional black caucus" was in charge of that "clear policy"...
compare south africa then, n now after the "black communist's" took over....

[Eric in the Ozarks]

When you write the check, you can call the tune.

[Bonaparte]

The British Empire had its day, but all that ended 100 years ago. And no amount of whining about America as the new world leader is going to change this. Mr. Parris has had 50 years to accept this. What a stubborn guy.

[foreshadowed at waco]

This is a terrific article and I'd have to say that he is right on point...we are the world's policemen...we are the best country at defining our goals, targeting our energies and resources, and getting the job done with a minimum of fuss...we are large geographically and very rich...we have our place in the civilized world as do the British...I wouldn't demean the British role as being Batman to our Robin...Britain has a tremendously important role to play in this war...Tony Blair is the diplomat who can soothe the ruffled egos of the Arab world and the former colonies of southern Asia....he can be the poet support guy while GW is our Braveheart.

[Eala]

Lots of problems with this article. To address just one:

Why didn't he go into the loo?

Seems obvoious (based on other reports, if one believes them): The loo was nowhere near as strategically located, with respect to damage from a small bomb, as the seat he sat in.