Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Well, Then Try This One

Since my last foray into counterfactual history sparked so much learned discussion, try this one from Niall Ferguson, on the Great War of 2007.

Discussions - 26 Comments

Basically what the writer is suggesting that we should kill them alright, but for their own good.


The Iranians have said, again and again that they have no plans to develop nuclear weapons, that it runs contrary to Islam etc.,etc.


Even if Ahmad-inejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.


Depressingly, the author is quite correct here. However, this is not our fault, but the fault of the administration that lied/misled/got it wrong in Iraq.


The US, and the world, faced a much greater threat of annihilation for 50 years and managed to keep their nerve. Why? Because we had no choice. Here, we have a choice, because the "enemy" could be destroyed with impunity. If you can convince the rest of us to buy it. I don’t think he’s going to swing it though.


Roughly 2 million people marched in London against the attack on Iraq, can you imagine what it’ll be this time?


Fool me once, shame on .... you? Fool me twice .... you cain’t get fooled again!

"Roughly 2 million people marched in London against the attack on Iraq, can you imagine what it’ll be this time?"-Coughlan

Two million sheep tended by Imam "Hooky" and a host of Islamist "shepards"

Neo-Dhimmi Coughlan just doesn’t get it.

Two million sheep tended by Imam "Hooky" and a host of Islamist "shepards"


Oh dear, have you nothing rational to say?

"Oh dear, have you nothing rational to say?"- ’Dhimmi’ Coughlan

Uh.............do you?

Oh........oblivious one, check out this item....

http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=AAHGLZBI5QK2XQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/01/15/ixportal.html

You may now continue with your utopian daydreams.

Oh, by the way Coughlan, a little history refresher..............

QUOTATION: My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.
ATTRIBUTION: Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940), British politician, prime minister. speech, Sept. 30, 1938, Downing Street, London. The Penguin Book of Twentieth Century Speeches, ed. Brian MacArthur (1992).

The day after returning from Munich, where Chamberlain conferred with Hitler, Mussolini and Daladier, and it was agreed that Germany should annex Sudetenland while the remaining frontiers of Czechoslovakia were guaranteed. A week later, Chamberlain justified this policy: “We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators” (speech, Oct. 6, 1938, House of Commons).


Fast forward 60+ years and substitute the "presidente" of Iran. Coughlan, you and your 2 million(?)are still sheep.

Ah .. yes ... a very exciting link Jesse.


However, it is in fact the link associated with this posting? The one posted by Steven Hayward?


Don’t you read the contributions before spouting off?


It’s common courtesy to at least read the material before despoiling the comments section.

Your analogy is fatally flawed because :


a) Iran have not annexed anyone.
b) Iran have not broken any international agreements.


C’mon! You didn’t even read the associated article you goof!


I’m going to take you seriously?

"I’m going to take you seriously?"-Coughlan

No need to. I find your postings to be a great source of comedy relief.

Ferguson makes the assumption that Britain and other nations of Western Europe have some military power. In fact, they have so badly cut back on their military establishments that the whole weight of dealing with Iran by force is on the back of the Americans and Israelis... The Europeans have some leverage by threatening to curtail trade with Iran, but that’s all... Ferguson is quite ignorant about the world’s supplies of oil, which are enormous. And still his look ahead is more interesting than Mr. Baker’s. His remarks about the senescence of Europe are right on the mark.

"The US, and the world, faced a much greater threat of annihilation for 50 years and managed to keep their nerve. Why? Because we had no choice."

No, because we had Mutually Assured Destruction. Suicide bombers don’t care about retaliatory strikes.

"Here, we have a choice, because the "enemy" could be destroyed with impunity."

I’m not really keen on nuking millions of innocent Iranians. Are you?

"Roughly 2 million people marched in London against the attack on Iraq, can you imagine what it’ll be this time?"

So what. In the 1930’s, the women of London found it fashionble to wear swastika charms on their bracelets. Britian’s refrain was "it will don’t offend Hitler, he will leave us alone". I don’t put much stock in the opinions of Euro Appeasers.

/reformatted


The US, and the world, faced a much greater threat of annihilation for 50 years and managed to keep their nerve. Why? Because we had no choice.


No, because we had Mutually Assured Destruction. Suicide bombers don’t care about retaliatory strikes.


Here, we have a choice, because the "enemy" could be destroyed with impunity."


I’m not really keen on nuking millions of innocent Iranians. Are you?


Roughly 2 million people marched in London against the attack on Iraq, can you imagine what it’ll be this time?"


So what. In the 1930’s, the women of London found it fashionble to wear swastika charms on their bracelets. Britian’s refrain was "if we don’t offend Hitler, he will leave us alone". I don’t put much stock in the opinions of Euro Appeasers.

"The Iranians have said, again and again that they have no plans to develop nuclear weapons, that it runs contrary to Islam etc.,etc."

Brian, when the mullahs came to power in Iran, they eschewed the military and everything that was western, which included research on nuclear technology. Later on Khomeini (sp?)changed his mind and decided that nuclear technology was something good to pursue.

What vexes me about people like Brian is that they take the despots, tyrants, and intolerants (Iranian leadership for example) at their word, yet suspect everything the United States does or says.

That is the absolute in being counterfactual!

What vexes me about people like Brian is that they take the despots, tyrants, and intolerants (Iranian leadership for example) at their word, yet suspect everything the United States does or says.


Yes it’s true I can be inconsistent. I’m only human. However, it’s not entirely irrational, given that my experience with this administration is that they either do tell lies, or at the least are not terribly competent. So why should I trust anything they say? I’d give anyone else who arrived on the scene a fair shake, but Bush and his entourage have already dirtied their bib.


As for the Iranian guy ... wasisname? He’s an unknown quantity. Love him are hate him, he was elected sort of, in a kind of borderline democratic process. He can’t do whatever he likes, there are factions within the Iranian power hierarchy, just like there are in the US.


I just don’t want to see a hundred thousand Iranians killed, and millions pitched into chaos, for another Iraqesque "just in case scenario".


So lets just keep trying to convince them to see sense, while monitoring the crap out of them.

And, Brian, that is what we are doing.

However, none of the this would work if not for the very real threat of military action and I don’t mean just a bombing campaign.

Brian, your assertions about the United States President make no sense. They are made in the face of reality.

It is clear that you Brian don’t want war, at all costs. War, for you, is the evil of all evil and since President Bush brought about our current War on Terror, he is the epitome of evil.

This type of thinking is what makes me so dismissive of your assertions. It is why I come across as belligerant on these threads for I can not detect true rational thought in such thinking.

Just the other day another so-called statist, pacifist, was killed by the Islamofascist. They don’t care if you are for their side or, in your case Brian, just against the United States. For them, this is much simpler. For them, the very fact that you are a non-believer is enough for them to slit your throat. Even if you declare youself a Muslim, the very fact that you associate yourself with the west and all of its supposed decadence is enough for you to have your head cut off.

That is the rational behind the terrorists. That is why I cringe at your assertions Brian and berate you because of them!

Coughlan, me boy, where is Ireland and Sweden?

http://www.globalfirepower.com/ranking.asp

Sort of off the chart....eh?

You seem to be very obsessed with "International Policing"; i.e. cops go in to arrest a nation’s leader for "high crimes". Laughable scenario: UN Bluehelmets go to Baghdad to "arrest" Saddam thank you mam. Where is your backup?.........Bahhhhh..Coughlan you are totally preposterous.

Continue with your Utopian daydreaming.

Just the other day another so-called statist, pacifist, was killed by the Islamofascist. They don’t care if you are for their side or, in your case Brian, just against the United States. For them, this is much simpler. For them, the very fact that you are a non-believer is enough for them to slit your throat.


I agree that this was awful. However, it was the act of a single individual or a small group of ruthless and perhaps desperate people.


Lumping these people all together into a single box, presenting them as one dimensional slavering monsters is of course nonsensical, at least I hope you realise that?


For radical muslims, the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq provide ready justification for atrocities.


If I was talking to them, I’d say the same things I’m saying to you.

Hey, Coughlan, check out these rankings...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

If ya scroll waaaaayyy down you’ll find Sverge at #97 and the Old Sod at #139. But hey, they are cops are they not? At least they may direct traffic with minimal problems. No?

From the CIA Factbook.

You had to look that stuff up?


Well since we are comparing statistics, here’s are a few interesting one for yah :


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2046.html


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2186.html


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2070.html


Ireland and Sweden don’t need or want armies, because we are not antagonising half the world. With a semi sane leader, you could cut your budget too. It might happen.

Ireland and Sweden don’t need or want armies, because we are not antagonising half the world.


"If we avoid antagonising Hitler, he will leave us alone" - Europe 1938


You don’t need armies because the US military protects you.

You don’t need armies because the US military protects you.


Your protection is not wanted or needed. The EU has more than enough military force to manage anything that comes up, we should be cutting back if anything.


You would be wiser to encourage your government to increase it’s aid. In the first instance to the 12% of americans that live in poverty, and the 15% without health insurance, than wasting it protecting people who neither want, nor need your protection.


To put it in your terms. We are going to continue to take you for a ride. To provide health care, generous social security and free education all the way up to third level for our citizens. We are going to continue to be healthier, better educated and more long lived than you. We are not going to spend money on the military, while you guys are thick enough to put people in power who will spend the money for us at the expense of the very people who put them there.


Hows that? Wouldn’t I make the bestest little republican:-)

Your protection is not wanted or needed.

Our protection was vital to Europe during the Cold War. Its still required to protect Europe’s interests. Of course, I would expect a socialist parasite to be ungrateful. No biggie.


The EU has more than enough military force to manage anything that comes up, we should be cutting back if anything.


Bosnia....


We are going to continue to take you for a ride. To provide health care, generous social security and free education all the way up to third level for our citizens. We are going to continue to be healthier, better educated and more long lived than you.


Hardly. Your system is unsustainable. The recent riots in Paris prove it. Your health care system is a joke - even your elites fly to America to get real care. Better educated? LOL. Rampant ignorant anti-americanism on the continent gives lie to that. And your french graduates can’t even grasp the basics of global economics.


Socialism cannot compete. The only real question is whether Europe will implode before Islam takes over.

Hardly. Your system is unsustainable. The recent riots in Paris prove it.


Guess how many people where killed in those riots?


Yeah, none. I think it was 1 in the great Islamic rising of 2005.


In the Rodney King riots in 1992? Fifty to Sixty deaths.


Prison populations?


Comparison with other countries
The United States has the highest numerical prison population of any reporting world nation at 686 per 100,000.


For the most part, the U.S. rate is five to eight times that of the Western European nations and Canada.


The rate in England and Wales, for example, is 139 persons imprisoned per 100,000 residents while in Norway it is 59 per 100,000. The prison population in China was 111 per 100,000 in 2001.


So, forgive me for not shaking in my boots at your inane, "anti-european" predictions. I for my part, do not think that these statistics indicate imminent societal implosion in the US, however, they are far more worrying than anything we see over here.


If only you could elect people to spend the $450 billion currently spent annually on the military, on the people. The US would be utopia.


Plus for the record, I am not anti US. Just anti militarism, anti Bush, and anti the sycophantic morons who fawn on him. Although, in the current climate, I can see you might have difficulty differentiating ...

Guess how many people where killed in those riots?

Non-sequitor. The point is that European parasites will not allow their governments to change course, even if it means the whole ship sinks.

And your stats are apples and oranges.

We foot the bill for big-ticket items like European security, giving you a surplus to spend on social programs, and you still blow it. By all rights, the French and German economies should be steaming ahead of all others.

We foot the bill for big-ticket items like European security, giving you a surplus to spend on social programs, and you still blow it.


So stop doing it. Spend it on yourselves. We want you to.

No, Brian, Western Europe doesn’t want the United States gone from its lands. You do, but Western Europe doesn’t.

It is a sign of the weakness Weakness Europe has and the we, the United States, have enabled.

Sorry, I meant ...

It is a sign of the weakness Western Europe has and the we, the United States, have enabled.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8279