| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| The UK's Prospect Mag looks at life after Prez. Bush |
| 2006-10-30 |
| A really jingoist and flawed analysis of the US and it's place in the world. |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #10 It was a rhetorical question, Shieldwolf. Half the answer is they're evil, and the other half is that they're screwups. IMHO. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-30 16:38 |
| #9 Why did Hitler declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour? The US was at war with Imperial Japan, not Nazi Germany, and the mood in the country was such that Roosevelt could NOT go after the Nazis, until they obliged by declaring war on us. But the ego and the evil of the regime demanded that declaration. It is the same with the Islamofascists : they must be at war with us because we are the Great Satan and they are obligated by Allah to destroy us. Horribly bad job that they have been doing, not withstanding. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-10-30 15:50 |
| #8 Don't listen to him Snowman...heh heh Guuhrthang Blood Asylum Lvl 57 Paladin Lothar Actually, I've stopped playing until I see what the expansion's gonna be like. I heard the alliance is gonna get healing then. -------------- Back to the subject at hand: You could redefine religion as tribalism if you wanted, in fact it might even be more accurate or useful to us than the religion-based conception. But then you go back to the 9/11 attacks... financed by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia... there are disenfranchised minorities in Saudi Arabia, but none of them, AFAIK, took part in the attacks. The Balochis want their independence from the rest of Pakistan, but we weren't doing anything to them, or to the Pashtun, on 9/10. The latter had just finished turning Afghanistan into a Pakistani satellite state. They _already had_ what they wanted, or what the above-quoted jingoist says they really want. Why'd they go **** it up? |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-30 14:44 |
| #7 Actually, I'm at work right now. (Although on my lunch break, so I'll give the "Readers' Digest Condensed Version" a shot): * The "Kashmiri separatists" seem to be mainly from Pakistan, not from India, and have been practicing for the past thirty years or so various attempts to ethnically cleanse Kashmiris who disagree with them from the area. They appear to not care whether their victims in this regard are Moslem or Hindu, and there are examples of those "militants" terrorizing Moslem civilians in Kashmir in the archives. * The situation in Iraq is slightly muddied by the Shia'-Sunni divide, but there are plenty of examples of al-Sadr's groups fighting other Shi'ite groups and militias, for example the Badr Brigades. * FARC and ELN in Columbia, as far as I can tell, aren't dileneated by any sort of ethnic divide. I could be wrong. * I am also unaware of any great ethnic divide re: the Maoists in Nepal vs. the more legitimate factions within their government. (I have to phrase that carefully, since they're also apparently part of the government now, thanks to successful political extorsion). * Only if you classify Hezbollah as a separate ethnic group rather than a religious sect could you explain their existance. Only if the Shi'ites in Lebanon are a different "tribe" rather than a different religion. * But if you're going to do that, go all the way and point out that we're fighting off the attacks of an imperialistic tribe that cares less for self-rule than the rule of others. If it's all tribalism, ... ----------------- "OK, everyone, Lunch Break is over! Back to standing on your heads!" ------------------ I'll be back later. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-30 13:34 |
| #6 Don't listen to him Snowman...heh heh Guuhrthang Blood Asylum Lvl 57 Paladin Lothar |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-10-30 13:32 |
| #5 Stop playing World of Warcraft , Abdominal Snowman , then you'll have time ... tsk tsk grand children |
| Posted by: MacNails 2006-10-30 11:45 |
| #4 Getting more serious for a second: Does it strike anyone as odd that 9/11 *never happened* in this person's universe? Also, he follows the Left's doctrinaire dictionary definition of "people's movements." Hopefully if I have time today I'll try taking it apart later. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-30 09:27 |
| #3 Well, everyone seems to think the 60's went from about '63 to '75, although you have to have been at Woodstock to appreciate it, but then again if you were you wouldn't remember it. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-30 09:25 |
| #2 The long 1990s are finally over I haven't got farther than the first phrase yet. But it seems to me that a journalist unclear that a given unit of time is of fixed duration, regardless when in history it might occur, is perhaps less than totally trustworthy on other items of fact, let alone projection therefrom. Admittedly, I'm a bit absolutest on such things. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-10-30 06:46 |
| #1 blah blah NEOCONSERVATIVES BAD blah blah DECLINE INETIVABLE EVEN IF GORE WON blah blah blah BAD WESTERN CIVILIZATION! BAD! BAD! blah blah blah blah FOR THE HORDE! blah blah blah... |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-30 01:23 |