Current issue
On sale now
The Iranian chess game
.jpg)
In the Washington Post David Ignatius observes that, in their testimony to the Senate on the war in Iraq, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker portrayed the malign and nefarious influence of Iran as lying at the very core of the ongoing difficulties in Iraq. Ignatius makes two very important points:
Iran's covert campaign to reshape Iraq has been clear since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Iranian intelligence officers prepared lists of Iraqis for assassination in the weeks and months after the war began; they sent Iranian-trained mullahs to take over the Shiite mosques of central and southern Iraq that had been smashed by Saddam Hussein; they pumped an estimated $12 million a week in covert financial support to their allies as the January 2005 election approached; they infiltrated all the major Shiite political parties, and many of the Sunni ones, too.
The Iranians have fixed the political game. They are on all sides at once. They have links to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Dawa party; they funnel money to the Badr organization of Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, which is a key recruiting ground for the Iraqi army; they provide weapons, training and command and control for the most extreme factions of the Mahdi Army. Moqtada al-Sadr, the Mahdi Army's nominal leader, is actually living in the Iranian holy city of Qom…
The first point is that, although Petraeus implied that Iranian meddling in Iraq was a recent development, it was actually clear from the get-go. Yet although the Americans (and the British) knew full well that Iran was a key factor in stoking the fires of insurrection in Iraq, they chose to remain silent about it and went to enormous lengths to avoid acknowledging it, even to the extent of issuing rules of military engagement against hot pursuit over the Iranian border to catch Iranian terrorists responsible for attacking coalition forces (and who can forget Britain’s humiliation last year over Iran’s kidnap of the 15 British marines when Britain’s terms of engagement forbade any act of defence in case of ‘escalation’ into war with Iran). So why has it taken all this time to say what was plain from the start, that throughout this period Iran has been waging war on us?
The second point is a grim one. For all the apparent success of the surge, the reduction in violence in Iraq and the reported ‘awakening’ by the Sunni Iraqi sheikhs to the iniquity of al Qaeda, the fact is that Iraq is now a puppet state of Iran. As Ignatius observes, Iran has fixed the Iraqi government, the Iraqi army and the Iraqi insurrection. Even Ayatollah Sistani, once no friend to the Iranian Shia, has now buckled under. The purpose is strategic. Iran is the great chess player of the Muslim world and it is steadily moving its pieces into a checkmate position. It is now playing in Iraq a similar role to the one it is playing in Lebanon, where it controls the government and has an army, in the form of Hezbollah, poised to attack Israel (again), and which it is also developing in Gaza where it is aiding Hamas.
But it’s worse even than that. For Iran’s chessmen are now in position not just here and in several other trouble spots around the world but also in the west. While Britain, America and Europe have been (rightly) transfixed by Sunni terror in the form of al Qaeda and the allied cultural onslaught by the Muslim Brotherhood, they have totally overlooked the fact that an Iranian Shia terrorist infrastructure has been built in British, American and European cities. In Britain, for example, dozens of extremist Shia mosques have sprung up in London alone, some of which are serving as the base for unknown numbers of Hezbollah cells in the UK. We don’t know about them because, unlike al Qaeda, they are not announcing their presence through sporadic attacks. They are, instead, waiting.
What are they waiting for? A signal.
Here is the nightmare scenario. Iran is racing to develop the bomb (the picture above shows Ahmadinejad at Natanz) while the west obligingly provides it with the time to do so. Le Monde, for example, has obtained documents showing that, contrary to the infamous American National Intelligence Estimate, Tehran was indeed pursuing a military nuclear program after 2003 (what a surprise). In response, President Bush may or may not attack Iran before he departs the White House. If he decides not to do this, history will record that he allowed this seismic threat to civilisation to realise its deadly ambition. But if he should decide to do it, the response is unlikely to take the form of rockets fired from Iran since it will very likely be paralysed by the US attack at an early stage. Instead it will unleash its sleeping weapon — its terrorist army around the world. Hezbollah will attack Israel from Lebanon, maybe along with Hamas from Gaza; in Iraq, it will attack US forces who will be sitting ducks; and Europe will be subjected to unquantifiable acts of terror.
When British officials are told about the threat from Shia radicals in their midst, they shrug it off. They believe that, since the British government will not join the Americans in a war against Iran, Britain will not be a target for retaliation. Once again, they could not be more wrong. To Iran, Britain and America are linked as the greater and lesser Satans; Britain indeed is seen as the very fount of historic western imperialism, particularly in the Middle East. So Britain would get hit regardless, even though there’s no longer any British spine to snap. And so probably would America.
The terrible thing is that we are have sleepwalked into this and are still in the same trance. Iran declared war upon the west in 1979 when Khomeini came to power. We ignored it. When Hezbollah attacked western interests in the decade that followed, we ignored it. When Hezbollah pointed thousands of rockets at Israel, we ignored it (and blamed Israel when it finally tried to fight it). And now that we have it in our own cities, we are doing nothing whatever about it. But we are thus ignoring an unconscionable threat, one that is within. We have been recklessly oblivious before, to the growth in our midst of al Qaeda. We are doing it again. Who can forget the placards on London’s streets waved by suicidally stupid British liberals during the Lebanon war proclaiming ‘We are all Hezbollah now’? That could soon be truer than anyone thought.
As I have said before, all roads lead to Iran. One way or another, the regime has to be taken out. It would be great if this could happen through the Iranians themselves rising up and overthrowing it. But how likely is this?
This is the decision President Bush is having to weigh. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. The consequences of war with Iran, along the lines sketched out above, would be dire and would extend way beyond the region. But the alternative may be war with a nuclear Iran, genocide or the nuclear blackmail and inevitable throttling of the west — or all three. It’s a hard decision, made harder because the dilemma is largely self-inflicted through almost thirty years of supine refusal to acknowledge reality. But ultimately, the self-delusion has to end. The only question is whether it will do so in time to avert catastrophe, or will dawn amongst the ashes.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Clive Davis | Alex Massie | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Faith Based | Trading Floor
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (46)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Search this blog
Melanie's Published Articles
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie in Mail Debate Online
Latest blog posts
sponsored links
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
ROME CENTRE
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Robert
April 10th, 2008 11:54pmThe war with Islamofascism began not on Sept. 11 2001 but on November 4, 1979 with the Iranian Hostage Crisis. This conflict began in Iran and will end in Iran. The sooner will come to terms with that the better.
albert sarko (word-drum)
April 11th, 2008 1:06amYes. All roads lead to Tehran and it's been said all along but those saying it have been drowned out, or beaten down (President Bush). He is too weak to take decisive action. And the sleeper communities you mention are an unknowable, too hard to calculate. As always
Melanie, your analysis is flawless and compelling. Gen. Petraeus hinted and now commanders in Iraq have declared Iranian-sponsered- terror: Enemey #1, overtaking al qaeda. Cheers.
http://word-drum.spaces.live.com/
James
April 11th, 2008 1:28amCOMPLETE UTTER NONESENSE!
john doe
April 11th, 2008 2:27amThere is unlikely to be an uprising in Iran without the help of western intelligence infiltrating and fomenting it from within. It seems to me that the only solution is a quick military strike by Israel and/or the US, taking out the nuclear installations and the refineries from the air, minimising loss of life in collateral damage. A clinical operation like the recent one in Syria.
Steg
April 11th, 2008 3:12amNo more wars for Israel!
Bogdan of Australia
April 11th, 2008 4:50amAs always, I agree with Malanie 100%. However there is no point in grumbling into eternity over something that has been obvious from even ealier than the 7/11 terrorist act. It has always been obvious that Iraq was supposed to be the first step in the war against the resurgent totallitarian-collectivism (of which Islamo-Fascism is only the most virulend and dangerous strain). There is absolutely NO DOUBT that Iran must be dealt with soon. As a long and unflinching supporter of George Bush, I have always believed that he will have the determination and courage to make this necessary, next step which is to destroy Iranian regime and his WMD program. However I no longer believe that it is the case now. The tragedy is that in a few years the Western population will be able to accept perhaps ten times bigger sacrifices, human and material, than today, when we have a chance to stop this tragedy in the making. Invasion of Hitler's Germany would be uncomparably much costlier and blodier than the present intervention (I refuse to call it a war) in Iraq, but it would prevent the WWII that brought even more unimaginable suffering. And yet the opinion of the Western democracies was entirely against any engagement against Nazis even after they had invaded and conquered Poland (a formal declaration of war by Britain and France had no practical meaning). Again there is no doubt that we have to prepare ourselves to a much more devastating war in the near future (in thre-five years) than any military action against Iran would wrought on our lives today. I don't believe however that Bush has enough strength and personal courage left to do something that would not only be condemned by so called "intrnational community" but (an thoroughly idioic term) but for which he would receive support neither form an American public nor from Congres. He would, probably, have to risk not only impeachement but possibly even a prison if ordering such an act against Iran. Ther isn't even an assurance that even his commanders (like former adm.Fallon for example) would be willing to carry out his orders, as they would be counting on Congre's support for their anti-presidential stand. In such a case it would also signal the inglorious end af the US as a world super-power. Unfortunately, the only option has been left to Bush, is to tell us; "I told you so" in a few years. Perhaps then will the idiots start appologising to him for all the abuse that they are throwing at him. Didn't it happen to Churchil as well?
Michael B
April 11th, 2008 7:07amYes, yes to all of it. This is a superb summary of the present state of things and the analogies, from the chess game to sleep walking, are about as fitting as can be imagined.
We are risking, indeed are positively inviting, living in some interesting times, some very interesting times. Yet, seemingly, people imagine tomorrow will be as yesterday as a matter of course or even as our rightful due. But reversing Marx's well known dictum, this current farce has the real potential of turning into tragedy, writ large.
albert sarko
April 11th, 2008 7:21amMany have said All Roads Lead To Tehran all along.
Their voices have been drowned out.
President Bush and The Administration have been beaten down.
The sleeper communities you mention are an unknown
factor, too hard to calculate for a nearly broken leader.
Melanie, as usual, you make the situation quite clear.
General Petraeus hinted, and today commanders in Iraq have declared Iranian sponsored terror the #1 threat, overtaking al qaeda.
Cheers
http://word-drum.spaces.live.com/
Mladen Andrijasevic
April 11th, 2008 8:26amShoshana Bryen, Security Policy director for JINSA, came to a similar conclusion:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerGuest.jhtml?itemNo=972586
“It is this conundrum that partially paralyzes Israel and the US.
You are right. Logical consistency dictates that someone deal with Iran before it goes nuclear, but to do the job (even partially) is to invite destruction; not to do the job is to invite devastation.”
mara
April 11th, 2008 8:50amMelanie. This is indeed a dire and difficult situation. We all say so. But what exactly would you do if you were in Bush's situation? The gnashing of teeth and banging of gums is easy. Bush appears to be firmly in a lose/lose situation. How this guy sleeps at night is entirely beyond me.
Mike
April 11th, 2008 9:07amFor me this is the most significant writing by Melanie Phillips this year! But I feel that on this occasion I can't follow my usual instincts and rush into a response. But I feel there is a grave omission somewhere, and I have to try and find it.
phil
April 11th, 2008 10:08amMike I know what is your grave omission -it is that militant Islam is against us -Bogdan has said it all -what we need is an alliance of real Muslims ,Christians and Jews to stand up to these killers and stop behaving like chamberlain
Ian C
April 11th, 2008 10:25amThe irony in this is if a Democrat is elected President the inevitable failure of any attempted talks with Iran will bring a much bigger offensive reaction when it eventually comes. The trouble is that Iran will likely be nuclear by then and the Iranian sleepers in the west even better prepared. If Bush decides he is too weak politically to do what is required (if this analysis is broadly correct and James, above, seems to think it is not but unhelpfully fails to state why) we should be very surprised if he does not help set up the broader defence issue, and the Iranian one in particular, to play THE decisive role in the autumn election campaign, to McCain’s advantage. On balance, I would certainly rather that McCain was dealing with the whole matter a year from now than Bush in a hurry. But to leave it to a Dem. President will ensure that it happens late and in far more ‘explosive’ circumstances. I recommend that all read Amir Tahiri on what damage talking to Iran could do. http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/21188
steve
April 11th, 2008 11:07am"the fact is that Iraq is now a puppet state of Iran"--Sorry, you just realized this now? Regardless of the government in Tehran, Iran is in a dominant position over Iraq. This was made possible by the American and British invasion of Iraq that you supported. It was a consequence that anyone with any knowledge of the region could have predicted. Now you're telling us that Iran is the big threat. So what was Iraq about then? This blog is getting more and more ridiculous every day.
Dee Ranged
April 11th, 2008 11:59amNow this is what I call global warning of global warming - Truly!
mohamed in pompey
April 11th, 2008 12:05pmLet's not forget that iran has some pro western folks especially the students. Best thing to do wld be to appeal to the iranian ppl directly hence strengthning the moderates. We shouln't throw the baby wth the bathwater. Hysteria is no substitute for prudent policy.
John
April 11th, 2008 12:29pmThe biggest mistake was taking out Saddam - he kept the lid on the Iranians and that region. What, precisely, have we gained in these last few years? As Melanie says Iran is the culprit here - they should have gone after them.
Ali Rabiei
April 11th, 2008 12:44pmA pure nonsence with so many allegations without proof. Merely designed to provoke non-Muslim British people against Shias in UK.
Harry
April 11th, 2008 2:03pmThe Great Dance Of Denial
(dedicated to James - 1.28am 11th April - and friends)
Dance, dance wherever you may be,
This is the dance of denial, said Jamsie,
And we’ll lead you all in a deluded frenzy
Fast-forward to the end of civilised society.
They danced in the morning on the Today programme
As they played the Devil’s advocate for Mr Saddam.
And they did it all again with Channel 4’s Silly Tie Man
His phoney posturing means I’ve never been a fan
You danced for Mr Rumsfeld and for Mr Cheney
But they said they would not dance for they saw through your folly.
You danced for al-Beebzera and The Guardian
They couldn’t wait to join in and the dance went on.
You said this only happened because of Iraq
Trouble is, Dhiren Borat pre-dated all that lark.
Your silly dance is about not facing up to facts
What’s it going to take to make you realise that?
You danced on 9/11 when the sky turned black
You grovel all the time since a spine you lack.
Take a look at yourself and your foolish choreography
It was all planned out by Ayatollah Khomeini.
Dance, dance…
[Repeat chorus until newly-installed Caliphate bans music]
Lynne T
April 11th, 2008 2:08pmsteve
April 11th, 2008 11:07am
"the fact is that Iraq is now a puppet state of Iran"--Sorry, you just realized this now? Regardless of the government in Tehran, Iran is in a dominant position over Iraq. This was made possible by the American and British invasion of Iraq that you supported. It was a consequence that anyone with any knowledge of the region could have predicted. Now you're telling us that Iran is the big threat. So what was Iraq about then? This blog is getting more and more ridiculous every day.
No Steve. I'm afraid not. This situation was not enabled by the US-led coalition deposing Saddam. It was made possible by the UN Security Council members who sat on their hands, some because they were beneficiaries of Saddam's oil voucher program, and the bitter rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran for global status as Defender of the Faith.
Nick Cohen certainly has it right about the mentality rife around what he describes as the "leftish".
From nickcohen.net:
Modern leftists do not have to risk alienating potential sympathisers with programmes that might make them uncomfortable. They rarely have proposals for a new ordering of society. They are merely against the West in general or America in particular, both of which, God knows, provide reasons aplenty for opposition. If someone points out that as leftists they have a duty to fight crimes committed by ultra-reactionary movements, the new left ideology instructs them to say that it is ‘hypocritical’ for westerners to criticise when they carry so much guilt. The correct course is to do and say nothing.
The collapse of socialism also explains the general inability of leftists in Europe and North America to work on behalf of feminists, democrats and leftists in the poor world. If you do not have a positive programme yourself, how can you see strangers as comrades who have the right to your support?
These perfidies may be scandalous but they chime with the psychology of modern consumerism. Shoppers don’t like altruistic commitments. They have no appetite for boring meetings to raise public consciousness and the lobbying of politicians to change policy.
When I go into the homes of the richest people I know, I see Naomi Klein and Michael Moore on their shelves and think, ‘Why am I surprised? The Left is no threat to the wealthy any longer. Being a leftist is a lifestyle choice. It carries no costs and no obligations.’
Dorian Hack
April 11th, 2008 2:15pmBang on target AGAIN Mel!
Anybody interested in some further analysis go to: DEBKAfile and read "What or Who ordered US army NOT to intervene in Basra"
nxgfri
April 11th, 2008 2:58pmMelanie Phillips,
I think you and those agreeing with you, all need to seek psychiatric help. That's all I have to say.
mohamd in pompey
April 11th, 2008 4:22pmnxgfri you said too much.
steve
April 11th, 2008 5:15pmSorry Lynne T but could you explain how Iranian domination of Iraq is the fault of the U.N. Security Council? Iran's two great enemies, Saddam and the Taliban, were both removed by the U.S. military. Perhaps you approve of this but then don't turn around and complain about Iranian power filling the vacuum. This was entirely predictable.
raymond joseph douglas
April 11th, 2008 5:22pmYour contributors who say you are talking rubbish and no more wars for Israel etc,are themselves the ones who are been decieved.Keep up the good work melanie,some of us are with you!
Krishna
April 11th, 2008 6:23pmRobert
War didn't begin in 1979 either. More like 1953 with operation Ajax, which was the UK/US overthrowing of Iranian DEMOCRATIC leader.
The 1979 hostage crisis was started by Iranian students who disagreed with the US/UK supported theocratic rule.
These are the same students who want democracy in Iran today.
Do you really think your country is so innocent?
Keep lying to yourself that.
America/UK/Israel deserve its coming downfall. As an Asian, I am almost happy to see this happen before my own eyes.
BiBiJon
April 11th, 2008 9:10pmIran, a backward and fanatically fundamentalist tyrannical outpost?
Find out www.bibijon.org
Adam B.
April 12th, 2008 1:03amHarry, that's brilliant!
Mike
April 12th, 2008 9:09amPhil: Perhaps you are right, but not while the most powerful nation on this planet is led by the policies of the present US Admintration in the White House. It should be very clear that the fundamental assumption of the neo-con's drive for democracy in the Arab world as the key to the 'war' on terrorism, and using Israel as a model of liberal democracy, is seriously flawed. The problem for America is not that the Arabs don't like democracy, its that the White House will probably not like the government that democracy would deliver. Further, since America is presently extremely unpopular throughout the Middle East, it's very likely that if Arab governmens were to reflect public opinion they would be even more anti-American. Which means that since in free elections in the Arab world, the Islamists have generally done very well, this results in less cooperation with the United States agenda of maintaining miliary bases in the region, and peace with Israel. My conclusion of watching General Petraeous reporting to the House the other day, is that it was a propaganda exercise to justify keeping the US military in Iraq and using Iran as the usual 'whipping boy' to try and rally a skeptical public. What we saw in Basra was one 'war lord', Maliki, battling another, Sadr for power. We should recall that Maliki's Badr Corps was created in Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who the US declared a 'terrorist organisation' not so long ago! The whole situation is crazy! It makes no sense for Iran to try and destabilise Mailiki. Iran supports all the Shia militias and its not in their interests to promote more US generated military chaos in the region. They need to retain influence by ensuring a Shia dominated government in Baghdad remains in place. What they do not want is for this to be supplanted by a Sunni-dominated government which if allied with the US could be used to pressure Iran and possibly attack it. But nothing is ever that clear-cut in the Middle East, not unlike dear, poor Lebanon; a country of shifting alliances, where there are no heroes and no villains. It should be left to play itself out. Or what would make real sense is for the US to work for harmony by talking to Iran. But this will never happen while this Administratrion is driven by a failed and incompetent neo-con ideology. There has to be change.
Ravi
April 12th, 2008 12:44pmMelanie I am impressed. Apparently you have attacked British Shia Mosques all by yourself. MPAC UK are all upset. Wonder why. http://theymadeitup.squarespace.com/the-latest-news-and-discussion/2008/4/12/melanie-phillips-single-handedly-attacks-british-shia-mosque.html
Frank Pulley
April 12th, 2008 12:57pmOh Christ help us! The phil and Mike show is back on the road. I thought they had gotten a room somewhere and were doing the things consenting adults should do in private, then having polite little polemical tiffs between sessions. But then again judging by phil's comments (or 'writing' as he sometimes amusingly and vainly describes it), he can hardly be at the age of consent so we must earnestly advise against it.
Harvey
April 12th, 2008 3:51pmToo late Melanie .
Its a done deal . The dithering and hand wringing is so reminiscent of pre war Europe.We are indeed sleepwalking into a disaster of inestimable proportion and its entirely of our own making.
The consequences of an attack on Iran will indeed be grave but would be withstood by the free world.However it would destroy the Islamist revolution or at least put it on hold for generations not least because it would send a clear signal to these fascists that the Western democracies value their freedoms and reject the cult of nihilism and hate generated by the Islamist entity.
Unfortunately the catch -22 of Western democracy attached to civil liberty and decency is a reluctance to face up to unpalatable confrontation which would lead to the temporary chaos and inhumanity of war.
Men and women of decency and humanity will always seek to avoid war.This is our weakness and our strength.
Evil has never prevailed for long and this will surely be the case with the scourge of Islamo fascism.
The problem that we all face is that failure to confront this new evil in its nascent state will create greater hardship and loss of life in the future.
However as nature does not support a vacuum nor does the nature of mankind bend towards evil. Evil is the abberation of the human condition .
Islamism will be defeated as was Nazism and Communism .It is dependant on the understanding and resolve of our leaders to determine what cost in terms of human suffering is required .
The cancer that has started to eat away at the fabric of every Western society is not yet terminal but radical treatment cannot be further delayed.
phil
April 12th, 2008 4:03pmfrank pulley thank you for the kind comments- you are an amusing fellow and seem to know a lot about consenting adults ,from experience I presume ?personally I prefer girls . Mike and I don't remember inviting you on to our show .it is for intelligent commenters who may or may not agree with us , not sarcastic buffoons -I assume you know the phrase "dont give up your day job " many will think it is applicable to you
Michael B
April 12th, 2008 4:06pmAt MEF, David Wurmser illuminates the problem that is Iran:
http://www.meforum.org/article/1878
He suggests some long-overdue solutions as well, most notably when he prescribes 1) an open, publicly expressed regime change strategy for Iran - and Syria - and 2) abandonment of the two state "solution" for the Sunni Arab Palestinians. Neither Israel nor the world at large needs such a thoroughly malignant and dissolute non-solution.
There's a nearby talk by Philip Salzman that is worthwhile as well. Different subject and he's not the best speaker, but it's critical material in terms of some better founded comprehensions.
Frank Pulley
April 12th, 2008 4:49pmHarvey
You seem to singing two songs at the same time. Which one is the anthem you wish to adopt, "Give Peace a Chance" or "Onward Judaeo-Christian Soldiers."
It can't be both. Make up you mind!
Joe Strummer
April 12th, 2008 8:25pmYou are perfectly correct, Melanie. Indeed, the self-delusion has to end, but as long as a decadent, self-obsessed, narcissic West is too busy being hypnotised in front of their collective televisions by American Idol and drinking itself ito oblivion to notice the malevolence waiting to destroy it, they have no hope.
Harvey
April 12th, 2008 11:50pmFrank ,
Sorry that you found my missive a little ambiguous.
I will provide you with the 'Janet and John' version if it helps and to use your words I guess it has to be 'Onward Christian soldiers with a little help from the Tottenham supporters club.
Frank Pulley
April 13th, 2008 11:21amHarvey
Bwaaahahaha! Now you're mixing your metaphors too. That was 'Glory, Glory Allelujah!' and quite appropriate actually. And to stretch the metaphor a little further, as a young man in the early sixties I did support 'Spurs when they had a good team (I can still name it) and were winners all the way. BTW if you want to get intellectually superior about that - Freddie Ayers stood beside me in the enclosure a couple of times and he wrote eloquently on their admirable qualities and grace. In recent times however, now that they have handed over control to Dutchmen and Iberians and other assorted aliens they are all at sea - not unlike the UK government actually.
As for 'Janet and John' if you mean Janet Daley and John Fonte, then I agree, their clarity is preferable to your somewhat obscure exposition. You seem to want it both ways: your heart's in the right place, but your cojones seem a little undersized; but forgive me if I haven't quite grasped the nuance of your philosophical approach to the crisis. I'll try harder next time. Come on you Spurr-uurrrs!
Ann
April 13th, 2008 12:40pm"Mike and I don't remember inviting you on to our show .it is for intelligent commenters who may or may not agree with us" - more delusional nonsense from Mr Pomposity. Let me spell it out for you in reeeaally simple words: this is a public forum; you don't own it (sorry, 'public' is a six-letter word and 'own' is quite a hard concept, so I apologise for making it a little difficult for you).
Ann
April 13th, 2008 12:42pmSteg, visiting neo-Nazi websites is bad for your complexion.
Ann
April 13th, 2008 12:52pmQuite so, Lynne. Many in the present 'Labour' government are - let's face it - old-fashioned plutocrats, and many of those just to the 'left' of them are conventional rich Hampstead-based 'upper middle class' (using somewhat out-of-date terminology, but there is nothing else) robots with all the traditional champagne concerns of such people. And so on along the spectrum. The depth of ignorance of most of those people, whose hands are on the power levers of this country and other Western countries, is phenomenal. The same goes for the student-style 'left wing' convictions and ignorance of those along that spectrum. You only have to read the nonsense peddled about Israel by one half of our resident comedy double-act.
phil
April 13th, 2008 2:43pmanne up the dose -what you are taking is definately not enough-you have just posted 3 rants consecutively -now I think that must be a new record-camomile tea helps too
Ann
April 13th, 2008 4:26pmWell, I didn't really think that you would be able to follow my posts (the ones you ignorantly refer to as rants). After all, you still have difficulty spelling my name, dear.
phil
April 13th, 2008 6:16pmanne- spellchecker rejects your name, says too rude --now you will definately not win a nobel peace prize with your "rants".how many times need I tell you to •be nice•take a leaf out of frank pulleys book ;)-this passes a sunday doesnt it (lol)
Frank Pulley
April 14th, 2008 12:51amHarvey
Sorry, I just spotted a typo in my last post; I did of course mean 'Freddie' Ayer not 'Ayers'. Freudian slip - I was thinking of airs and graces when I typed it.
McNeill
April 21st, 2008 9:58amEveryone involved with this debate should read John Lewis's article "No Substitute for Victory" it details the author's ideas on how the Iran problem could be tackled. His recommended course of action is both startling and compelling: We need to dismantle political Islam just as we did political Shinto in Japan after WW2. Essential reading at this point in the war. Find it at The Objective Standard.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp