From: TYUTYUTYUTYUIT@GHJGKHJGKHJKGHJ.COM   
      
   "ROBBIE"  wrote in message   
   news:435b493f.0405241210.6976fd04@posting.google.com...   
   > "j.rennie1"  wrote in message   
   news:...   
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   There's only one thing left for you to do, Robbie.  Join   
   >  the British Army and put the rest of your body where your   
   > mouth is.   
   >   
   > This reply illustrates, with humiliating acuity, the feeble petulance   
   > of the anti-interventionist side of the argument. Notwithstanding the   
   > usual asinine nature of John's post, let me explain: if I was called   
   > up into this conflict I would go though I don't see the British Army   
   > having much use for me. Your childish argument seems to run along   
   > these lines: the only people who are allowed an opinion on military   
   > matters are military men, a situation which immediately reminds me of   
   > the governments of those shabby, fascist, banana republics of South   
   > America. Still, you certainly ain't the first lefty 'peace campaigner'   
   > who thinks in the patterns and logic of totalitarianism (this   
   > newsgroup was once dominated by just such an ingenuous left winger,   
   > who, incidentally, rather thought of me as a caricature and a foolish   
   > person).   
   >    I recall a former friend of mine-who was incredibly pious, pompous   
   > and very much of an anti war stance-proposing the same argument in   
   > this very newsgroup; it was a window on the contemporary anti-war   
   > campaign's mix of piousness and selfishness: war is evil, soooorry to   
   > the people under saddam's yoke (hardly noticed for years in the quick   
   > gloss across the Guardian's international news section, and certainly   
   > not cause for a quarter of a million strong march through London) and   
   > in any case, do you wanna get blown up?   
   >   Well, we're all under risk of getting blown up-and were before this   
   > war-and frankly, Michael Moore et al's ranting about an oil war   
   > doesn't convince me that Al Queda's stopping if it gets its aim of a   
   > fascist Iraq. Why, if Al Queda has no connection/sympathy/interest in   
   > Iraq, did they murder all those people in Madrid on pain of the   
   > Spanish coming out of Iraq?   
   >   Getting back to Delingpole's article, yes I waver and wonder if the   
   > war was the right thing to do (I wonder if the Holy Left ever wonder   
   > if leaving a nation alone under a fascist dictator who would snaffle   
   > up a nuclear bomb and put it into the hands of an Al Queda terrorist   
   > as quick as you could say London Reduced to Marsh By Islamofascist   
   > Plot was the right thing to do?).   
   >    It is no wonder that people waver. The dominant media here in   
   > England is left wing and the BBC will simply not broadcast positive   
   > news from Iraq. The BBC's whole attitude to the war has completely   
   > undermined my view of them: they are a frankly scary behemoth of a   
   > left wing propaganda machine.      Anti-interventionists will brandish   
   > surveys of the public disapproval of Bush and Blair and the war as if   
   > the result could be any other way after the media has finished with   
   > the subject. The anti-interventionists will also produce as a trump   
   > card the fact that 'it was the Americans that built Saddam up,' as if   
   > the deviousness and realpolitik of past governments somehow means that   
   > all current problems must remain unsolved. Needless to say that that   
   > argument also is a very good reason to say: OK, clean up the mess   
   > you've made.   
   >   The anti-war arguments, from Holy Harold Pinter through Sir Ian 'If   
   > I was alive at the time of Munich I would have been an appeaser'   
   > McKellen (he wouldn't have been the only wealthy appeaser to be found   
   > in Burke's Peerage eh Rennie boy?) down to your own cruel-and not a   
   > little racist-views on democracy and the middle east, appear specious   
   > and naïve at best and at worst criminally disingenuous.   
   >    It's not an easy argument for those of us who live in the real   
   > world and the anti-war 'appear to be morally superior and rather holy'   
   > view is THE EASIEST line to take on it: everyone thinks you're hip and   
   > you have a heart; take the pro interventionist line and everyone   
   > thinks you're Colonel Blimp.   
   >   The peace in Iraq hasn't been handled well but we know the kind of   
   > bloodthirsty, self aggrandising fascists that are trying to gain power   
   > there: every country has that element and in the Middle East they have   
   > it in aces; ordinary people, however, are glad to be rid of Saddam and   
   > the prospect of freedom and democracy  I know that your view, John, is   
   > that they are too dumb and institutionalised to even understand   
   > democracy. And you have the chutzpah to call *me* a racist.   
      
   John? JOHN? Oh I think another righteous lefty has left 'in disgust'.....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)