November 25, 2003


From Mark Steyn’s latest column, a small extract:

It's one thing to dislike Bush, it's one thing to hate America. But it's quite another to hate America so much you reflexively take the side of any genocidal psycho who comes along. In their terminal irrelevance, the depraved left has now adopted the old slogan of Cold War realpolitik: like Osama and Mullah Omar, Saddam may be a sonofabitch, but he's their sonofabitch.

Read the whole thing, which includes comparison of GWB and JFK. And from David Warren, a piece on protest culture:

Students are taught not to think, but to attitudinize, to strike the right posture when the signal is given, on subjects they know nothing about. This is what makes possible such things as "peace" demonstrations, in which large numbers march in support of slogans which are mindlessly trite.

The miracle is that so many of our young see through the imposture, educate themselves in spite of their seedy old draft-dodging professors, and find their own routes to their own views.

It's easy if you stay out of universities.

Posted by Tim Blair at November 25, 2003 10:37 AM

They've got the nose!

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 25, 2003 at 10:42 AM

Wrong again. As an anarchist leftie - I've always wanted Saddam dead - have done for years - and most lefties would agree.

And as for Osama. It was not me or any other member of the left that let him escape. The US did that through stupidity and incompetence.

This war is going badly for the simple reason that the idiots running it are so ignorant about their enemy they have become arrogant about it - and like all armies led by arrogant leadership they will suffer defeats and dislocation until they are led by leaders who are not arrogant and have the creative ability to figure out a truly winning strategy.

And no I am not going to outline any of that here. I have no desire to pass on any aid or comfort to our enemies.

So fuck your charges of treason to us of the left. 'Cause when I look at how fucked up the last 2 years of war have been it's Howard and Bush who should be charged with treason in selling short our security and liberty.

On that note I guess I better go get a new IP.


Posted by: crock of tim at November 25, 2003 at 10:54 AM

Heh. I spot an "Even as" in Steyn's column.

It's an apt one, more so than the ones Tim pointed out earlier, but still...

Posted by: Brian Tiemann at November 25, 2003 at 11:02 AM

This "attitudinizing" (which is an apt description, IMO)is not just part of protest culture, it's part of voting culture too. And it's not limited to students, nor solely owned by those left of centre.

Posted by: LD at November 25, 2003 at 11:03 AM

Crockie just keeps on opening like a flower. An "anarchist leftie"! Swoon!

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 25, 2003 at 11:05 AM

I love this new defintion of defeat. You roll over your enemy's armies in three weeks, send him rabbiting off to hide with a few followers, occupy his capitol, disband his army and secret police, begin building one of your own and set his country on a course that will give it a stable democratic system that will be immune to any attempt he might make at a coup. Meanwhile your own collosal military-industrial base is untouched and BTW, just happens to be the biggest on earth.

He holds no territory, has no industrial base, 80% of his own population will gladly kill him on sight.

This is victory? By what fucking standard? BY WHAT FUCKING STANDARD? Because the last of his partizans manage to kill a few hundred American troops? Out of an occupation force of ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTY FUCKING THOUSAND?

You see, 'crock of tim' this is why people generaly dismiss morons like you- you have utterly no grip whatsoever on reality. You're children in adult's bodies stuck in a permanent state of petulance. Like teenagers, you're annoying. Like teenagers, no one gives a shit about your opinion because you don't understand the world of the adults yet.

This is why you're ignored, this is why the best you can do is make stupid puppets and chant like idiots in thstreet while the grown-ups get on with the srious business of running the world.

Posted by: Amos at November 25, 2003 at 11:10 AM

So sorry Crock, but arrogant people have a tendency to be constantly preoccupied with other people's intelligence. In fact, it is impossible for them to write anything without some epithet with regards to that. Read some of the posts here. You'll see. Whoa, there's one right up above.

Posted by: Charles at November 25, 2003 at 11:13 AM

This war is going badly, defeats and dislocation for AmeriKKKa! Bush is hiding in Wyoming! Saddam's glorious armies are occupying America and have seized the capitol! Pointing out that I'm an idiot is arrogant! Stop please!

Posted by: Amos at November 25, 2003 at 11:20 AM

Frederick Forsyth had a few words to Pres. Bush about idiots such as CoT-case above who is suggesting Bush does not 'have the creative ability to figure out a truly winning strategy' - what is this, an advertising pitch? - :

'The (British) left intermittently erupts like a
pustule upon the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated against everything and
everyone American for a century. Broadly speaking, it hates your country first, mine second. ... For a decade there was nothing
really to hate. But thank the Lord for his limitless mercy. Now they can applaud Saddam, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il....and hate a God-fearing Texan. So hallelujah and have a good time.'

(Courtesy of The Federalist)

Posted by: ilibcc at November 25, 2003 at 11:55 AM

Amos if you want to be arrogant about your perceived great victory then go right ahead. But many people are asking how the current war on terror is ever going to reach anything approaching a successful victory.

You think you have won the war when it's barely begun. We could easily be facing a century of ongoing terror wars that slowly rot the underpinnings of our economies.

As to Charles, I just reflect Tim's nasty approach to debate. You just don't like my version of the story and attack my language rather than the ideas wrapped in that verbiage. It would not matter how I expressed those ideas as the purpose of shitville is not to foster open debate - but rather to foster hate as Tim thugs yet another group of his peers with out of context comments, misrepresentations and slander.

Whatever the issue, if Tim doesn't agree with a person he'll invoke all sorts of assertions to attack the integrity of that person.

That's why he attracts so many trolls who spray shit back all over the site. Sorry Tim, but until you clean yo your act I'll be here slagging you off.

Up the Trolls!

Posted by: crock of tim at November 25, 2003 at 11:56 AM

I have a very small penis. To compensate for this I spend my life humiliating my self on websites run by people who are more intelligent than me.

I also have to live with the burden that my parents are brother and sister, and I am therefore I hideous hunchback with webbed toes. So please forgive my witless prattle.

Up the Trolls!

Posted by: crock of tim at November 25, 2003 at 12:01 PM

Actually, crock's point is valid if you take his "the war is going badly" to mean the war on terror, not the war in Iraq.

Amos, crock of tim never mentioned 'defeat'. Strawman argument. And I hate to draw any parallels with Vietnam, but there was an occupation force of hundreds of thousands of US troops then too. The US's military/industrial base was untouched. Military defeat still followed.

Posted by: fatfingers at November 25, 2003 at 12:03 PM

This column is downright weird: anyone who knows anything about the history of the U.S. in Vietnam knows that the reason the Kennedy administration was prepared to countenance removing Diem was that he represented exactly the sort of corrupt and tyrannical "local elites" that Bush says (with Steyn's support) should no longer be tolerated.

Perhaps that's Steyn's purpose - the rhetorical equivalent of Brer Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch - trying to lure liberals into saying "no, Kennedy was just like Bush".

On a policy level, Kennedy is about as similar to Bush as Vietnam is to Iraq - there are some interesting parallels that any sensible person notes carefully, but there are also key differences.

On a personal level, they could hardly be more dissimilar. For example, can anyone imagine Bush in Kennedy's place during the Cuban missile crisis refusing to accept the advice of his national security staff, Secretary of Defence and the joint chiefs to launch an invasion, and eventually convincing them through sheer force of intellect that a negotiated settlement was possible?

If Bush had been president, there would have been a nuclear war.

Posted by: Mork at November 25, 2003 at 12:13 PM

I thought the war in Iraq was now part of the war on terror.

We've gone from a state of no war, to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Korea with the Bomb, Iran weeks aways, bombs going off in Turkey doing major damage to domestic opinion.

The war is a mess. Go read some Civil War history and see how well the Northern generals fucked up the war for years, before it worked out a winning strategy.

We have spent nearly 2 trillion dollars on the war and intelligence machine since 9/11. For that sort of money the world should be long at peace, with Saddie and OBL in a cage in Holland.

Can't any of you see how this is following a script that OBL obviously foresaw. People like that spend every minute of their day thinking about our strengths and weaknesses and plotting their next moves.

There are 2 billion more people in the world today than in 1975 when the Vietnam war ended. The world is that much bigger, that much more complicated and inter dependendent. And we are sitting ducks.

We can at least agree on that can't we.

Or is Amos et al so arrogant they can't even see how we are exposed to a complex set of dangers that threaten our long term viability.

This is where the debate on the war is going to shift to in the months ahead. And Bush has a lot of explaining to do yet.

Posted by: crock of tim at November 25, 2003 at 12:17 PM

Hi Tim, everybody...

I'm currently studying Law (did 2 years of Psychology rpeviously) at a major Queensland University. Thankfully, I can say that the usual band of tertiary students you might see at various peace protests chanting "down with America" or "Kill Bush" are in no way resresentative of the GENERAL student population - "liberal" or "conservative."

Sure, many students agree with the war on Iraq and the war on terror...many don't. But the MAJORITY of students would recognise the "pros and cons" of their position and of the position they oppose. The typical dreadlocked, Che Guveara shirt-wearing, Rage Against the Machine CD-listening, bongo drum-playing vegans are seemingly only ever there for ONE purpose: to demonise America/The West/Australia, and to cheer on their enemies...whoever they may be.

Anyone here recall those wonderful "peace protests" in Sydney brought to you by that "Books Not Bombs" group? Remember the group of young Middle-Eastern males trying to pick a fight with the police as the television cameras fimed? Remember the "we want a riot" chant going up again and again? The chair-throwing and vandalism? And remember how this "Books Not Bombs" crowd then blamed the cops for it all afterwards?

Don't worry Tim. These sorts of people will always exist in society...and even in universities. But there'll always be the silent majority (silent except at the Ballot Box), whom I've always trusted to make a rational, informed decision about the country's future.


Posted by: Richard at November 25, 2003 at 12:21 PM

There's a major university in Queensland?

Posted by: Mork at November 25, 2003 at 12:23 PM

It's like the Tet Offensive all over again! Back in 1968 the Viet Cong launched a massive offensive which failed miserably. Yet many in the Western media decided to report this offensive, "the Tet Offensive", as a major victory for the Communists.

This lie didn't end the war in Vietnam, it didn't even directly turn US public opinion against the War. However, it was another little part of the road that led to a vicious and horrible regime taking power and killing many thousands of people.

Many journalists, like Fisk, as well as many fellow travellers like Crock, are trying to use the same tactic in relation to Iraq now. Unfortunately it won't work this time, because we on the right are much better prepared and have our own sources of information.

As for people like Crock and his chums always wanting Saddam to be otherthrown, what a load of old toss! These people never ever offered any constructive arguments as to how the removal of Sadam was to be effected. Befoe the war, every time some "anti-war" type opened his mouth the effect was to give aid and comfort to the thugs of Baghdad.

Now millions of Iraqi people can look forward to some semblance of freedom and don't have to worry about the death squads. Yet all these onanists on the left can do is whinge about "Amerikka".

AS I've said before, Crock and his ilk seem to function on the secretion from a special guilt-gland. Under the influence of this strange enzyme these people thouroughly enjoy the liberties of the West but hate their own society and culture so much that can't wait to blame the West on every occasion possible. I remember this fact striking me several years ago when I heard for the umptieth time from some lefty how wonderful Aborigine tradition was because: "like, it is so ancient." Thus your average lefty gets his conservatism by proxy. Traditions are wonderful, as long as they are not our Western traditions.

These people's idea of dealing with conflict is to talk endlessly and then give in, thus giving the appearance to their fellow dimwits of "sophistication" or "nuance". Of course, real sophistication means cutting the Gordian knot when and where required. George Bush is a real sophisticate. Clinton was a small-dicked, hick time waster.

Posted by: Toryhere at November 25, 2003 at 12:23 PM


Three, actually. A number of others on the way up as well.


Posted by: Richard at November 25, 2003 at 12:29 PM

beautifully argued in the first instance richard; and a smart-ass remark beautifully returned with a perfectly straight bat in the second

you have a future unlike some of the tired old lefty vultures currently nesting here

Posted by: ilibcc at November 25, 2003 at 12:58 PM

" But many people are asking how the current war on terror is ever going to reach anything approaching a successful victory."

We could look at what its achieved already. Two years ago Al-Qaida could kill thousands of people in a major weatern city. Last year they could kill a couple of hundred people in Bali. This year they've scarecly been able to run any attacks outside of the middle east, and most of them have ended up killing more moderate moslems than infidels in small strikes. Furthermore, terrorist attacks are down worldwide. I'd call that a result.

Posted by: Wilbur at November 25, 2003 at 02:58 PM

..anyone here recall those wonderful "peace protests" in Sydney brought to you by that "Books Not Bombs" group?...

Richard, I recall the Vietnam march that started in the park adjoining Sydney University and finished in front of Town Hall. Students, unionists, and other 'useful idiots', carrying NLF flags and led by the likes of Jim Cairns and Tom Uren. Traitors then, and traitors now, the whole bunch of them.

Posted by: Byron the Aussie at November 25, 2003 at 08:45 PM

You know the saying never underestimate your enemy. Crock needs it said backwards.
We could easily be facing a century of ongoing terror wars that slowly rot the underpinnings of our economies.
How so? Easy for who? Saddams boys were no threat at all, according to the left, even before we ousted them. Pakistan has it's hands full annoying India. Saudi Arabia is growning under it's Royal ponderance without interference from outside. Just a nudge will tip over that kettle. Indonesia is that most liberal of Islamic States( at least on paper) with elections and Lady figure heads and everything. They even stopped trying to kill every Christian in the place (now only attacking the conveniently situated ones).
So where is this great Muslim crusade in reverse going to come from? Iran?
Muslims bizarro world liberals are eating away at Iranian traditions even more so then our pussified flowerchildren are nipping at ours.

I think you are over estimating the enemy by a long shot. I have a hope for this world.
In the next century I predict the largest problem faced by man will be boredom.

Posted by: papertiger at November 26, 2003 at 12:20 AM

At the risk of seeming to take anything said by Crock seriously ... I have read enough American Civil War History to know this.

Many Northern (or should I say United States) political and military leaders knew the winning strategy almost from the outset, including Abe Lincoln himself, who could see it pretty clearly. Its essential aspects were often referred to as the "Anaconda" strategy.

In the face of entrenched political and military elites, not to mention wavering public opinion, Lincoln's challenge was to eventually get into supreme military command men like Grant and Sherman, who had the ability and the sheer grit and determination to pay the bloody price necessary to make it all happen.

There are some interesting parralels for those who seek them. Not worth over-playing, however.

Posted by: Bob Bunnett at November 26, 2003 at 12:28 AM

I'm still trying to comprehend how one can be "leftist" and an "anarchist." What, you're in favor of a centralized lack of planning?

Posted by: Bruce at November 26, 2003 at 01:02 AM

What is the problem with liberal fucktards that they can't imagine alternatives?

You think the war on terror is going badly because there are still attacks? Did you ever consider that a supine position could have enabled MORE and BIGGER attacks? Do you really have so little insight into Arab psychology?

Posted by: Dave S. at November 26, 2003 at 02:37 AM