Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Looking into the future - Mark Steyn sees the demographic storm gathering in Europe: "One of the reasons why Europe’s in for the perfect storm – unaffordable entitlements on declining human capital dependent on alienated self-segrating Muslim immigrant populations – is because of the size of public pensions liabilities."


Anonymous said...

I just read Steyn's recent article "Blair is right to pull his troops out of Iraq" (or something like it) about why pulling British troops out of Iraq is a good thing.

Just for starters, Mark Steyn is still trying to confuse Joe Blow by insisting that the Vichy French are more interesting and dangerous than the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the Walter Reed atrocities and Mark Steyn's bourbon-filled belly button.

We will not be as confused as Steyn is and so we will not try to confuse you.

Britain. It's because the South, Basra or somewhere, is safe now, although Baghdad is not, and that's why, instead of putting more British troops in Baghdad where they would be needed, we're putting an additional 21,000 sullen American teenagers and feisty old geezers (real Americans don't enlist in the military, they have different priorities) who are not really "fresh" troops at all, as the White House and President Tony Snow would have us believe, why, the bloody Tommies are leaving!

I'll repeat this in case your eyes have wandered and are now caressing Anna Nicole Smith's dead body. As one of our "allies," Britain, instead of putting many thousands of additional troops on the ground in Iraq to fight the War On Terror, is backing out and both the United States and Britain are claiming it is because of a successful campaign against the insurgents. The Iraqis, namely something they possess called "security forces," can now "stand up."

If they weren't wasting their time obsessing over the French, it might occur to Viking Pundit and any number of other muddle-headed, emotionally- and patriotically-crippled Steyn readers and Bush apologists to ask a simple question:

Why doesn't Britain simply redeploy (Oops! Bad word! I think it's French!) or re-locate these British troops where they might be able to do some good. Say, Baghdad or that alleged fifty-mile radius around Baghdad where right-wing pundits and President Tony Snow would have us believe eighty per cent of the violence is?

No answer? No. No, you don't have an answer.

Maybe we should let the French run the war. At least they had the courage and the "charming duplicity" to collaborate with the enemy rather than just run away and claim victory, like the British.

Thanks Viking Pundit--and thanks sissified Mark Steyn--for appeasing the terrorists.

Hercules in Belchertown said...

Hey! Barbie!

The French couldn't find their asses with a Franc up their butt and a metal detector.

Wait for the TOTAL CIVIL WAR after we leave Iraq. Wil you cry for the 'children' then? Nobody did for the 'children' of Vietnam and Cambodia after we left THEM in the lurch.