Comments on There is no cure for the UN by Mark Steyn
Thank you for bringing us Mark Steyn and his comments. We need him dearly here in Canada but are now confined to the excellent Western Standard to read him. The information in this column should be shouted from the rooftops – but – nobody wants to listen. Bravo to The Spectator
James Murawsky
Brilliant analysis!. I must admit that, as an American, I think we should just leave the UN, kick them out to Brussels, and then accidentally bomb Brussels flat. That way, we’d destroy two transnational organizations with one shot.
Dennis Sheehan
How did they get away with it for so long? In 2001 I worked for a while in an accounting firm with a large number of clients who were Australians of Iraqi origin. They were honest businessmen who paid their taxes on the dot. At least two of them had signed authorities from one of Saddam’s sons, so they said, to sell unlimited quantities of oil at a couple of dollars below the spot price on any given day in return for a commission of 50 cents a barrel. I had no reason to doubt that they were what they claimed to be. At the time I thought it was all above board. I left the firm in April 2001 and lost touch with these people. I really was surprised to discover that they were, probably unknowingly, parties to a scam.
Robert Peterson
Absolutely spot on analysis….beautifully presented.
Hhoward Kimmel
Excellent article as usual from Steyn. How about more seriously punchy stuff like this instead of mealy-mouthed political correctness? How about really standing up for Western civilization against all the multi-culti types?
Deon Kopke
Mark Steyn’s article about the UN is sheer brilliance. More of the same, please. Thank you.
Gerry Schor
Comments on Why do we tolerate intolerance? by Rod Liddle
As Secretary of the Scottish Friends of Israel, www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org, I read Rod Liddle’s article and considered it going some way to explaining some of what gets in the way of the seemingly simple idea of differing shades of humanitarian aid working together for the better good. Yet, among many of the friends which I forwarded the article to many, like me, were a little perplexed at who Mr Liddle was describing as “Zionist cockroaches of Israel”. I would very much appreciate a short explanation of that remark from Mr Liddle as to who it was, and wasn’t, he was referring to.
Stanley Grossman
Excellent article and it hit the nail right on the head. This should be published in all the national press. Shame that the majority of the population is either too dumb or too dumbed down by this government to appreciate it though. Well done!!
John
I’m getting seriously bummed (waaaaaa!) over here on the other side of the pond. Rod Liddle said everything I wish someone would say here. This week Christopher Hitchens mopped the floor with George Galloway (okay so you’ve got Galloway and Red Ken, we’ve got Mother Sheehan and Howard Dean and, need I say, Ted Kennedy). I’m sure there are American intellects on the public stage who get this Islam… well, crusade against Western civilization is one way to put it. But if they say anything at all they are mealy-mouthed about it. It’s such a disappointment. You all, on the other hand, are confronting this issue with such intelligence, eloquence and panache that I am constantly reminded why I am truly an Anglophile. Thank you.
J. Dellareina
I believe that the situation regarding the Red Cross, as mentioned by Rod Liddle, is not “merely” that the Red Star of David is offensive to Muslims, but that it is considered SO offensive to them that the Red Star of David organisation may not be affiliated to the International Red Cross at all. Nonetheless I believe that Magen David Adom units treat victims regardless of religion or ethnicity in incidents.
Sally Foster
Brilliant as a pure blue white diamond.
Howard Kimmel
For reasons which are now of historical interest I spent a lot of time with Muslims in India. The Indian Muslim does not think along the lines mentioned above. In fact many including the poorest of the poor speak well of the Raj. It is the Muslims from the Middle East who say, as many have said to me, with the utmost conviction that the Bank of England is owned by Jews. How do we account for this?
Robert Peterson
Mr Liddle’s comments about Islam and Muslims are a pitiful and offensive rant. The key emphasis of his article is to villify anything Muslim without any effort to comprehend what is going on at all. Calling people a “bugger” etc on no established ground at all is not good nor witty. His remarks about real Muslim attitudes towards homowhatsits are risibly academic. I suggest he can get a good “seeing to” at any Maghreb resort. The tipsy saloon bar is not a basis for journalism. Get him to skulk off.
Richard Moon
I see that Rod Liddle has been having some private tuition from that renowned scholar of bar-room politics, Mark Steyn. The garbage peddled in his article is beneath contempt and does your magazine no favours. So now Muslim combatants shoot at ambulances, do they? May I point out that if one is prepared to cause daily carnage, as is the case in Iraq currently, then one is not really expected to drop one’s gun at the sight of a red cross, crescent, star of David or tulip, is one? As for the Holocaust debate, there is a serious issue at stake here which has not been given the attention it deserves, so busy is Mr Liddle shooting at ambulances.
Ahmed Hamaidia
Rod Liddle, even though he is a fox lover, is so spot on, so tuned in. His articles are a breath of fresh air, a reason to believe that there is some sanity in the lunacy of England as it gradually gets flushed down the toilet, the island becomes super – septic. I love this guy and I am no pansy!
Mark Le Seelleur
Comments on What’s cricket and what’s not: the secret sporting history of Tony Blair by Peter Oborne
Peter Oborne is simply reaffirming Blair’s basis of government. Blair is not governing because he’s following what he believes, he governs because it suits his ego. The reason he became PM in the first place was because he changed Labour’s policies to plug the (popular) gap left by the Conservatives. Not because he necessarily believes in them. ‘He’s in love with the image of himself making the world right’ said Antonia Fraser. Politics should be about parties that give us policies that are deeply felt and not wavered from. Blair gave us politics that have glitz but no foundation. He is an expert at getting elected but not at doing the job. SOMEONE has got to get us back to where we were: the electorate needs a clear statement of fundamental beliefs – socialist, conservative whatever – from the parties that seek election. We are not getting value for money at the moment. We need a strong leader to emerge from the abyss and get us back to a true democracy. How can we possibly sell (or impose) the idea of democracy when our own is so badly abused?
Adrian Hill
Peter Oborne – as usual – has hit the ‘G’ spot. Blair’s housemaster at Fettes is on record as having said “Blair was useless at and had no interest whatever in sport”. His current perceived interest conforms to his general aura of phoniness.
Arthur O’Connor
I think Mr Oborne is a clairvoyant. Perhaps he can tell me when I will win the lottery?
Robert Peterson
Comments on Return of the Troubles by Kevin Myers
Your paper has a motley crew. Barbara Amiel, Lord Black’s consort; Mark Steyn; Taki, and the erstwhile scold Teuto-Celt Kevin Myers. Myers seems to see himself as Ireland’s answer to the pompous bombastic, alzheimered W.F. Buckley. One suspects the coven of devils quoting scripture. I suspect he is an expert on coprophagy. I cr
edit him for not being intimidated by the zio-nazis. That alone puts him in the JFK book of courage in which no Kennedy will ever appear.
John Morrison
Comments on Disability allowances by Leo McKinstry
Another tale of the weird and wonderful for you: the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Act 2003. It appears they neglected to mention sexual behaviour in this legislation, which, one would have thought was the whole point of the exercise; after all, “homophobia” usually refers to an objection to a person’s chosen behaviour, not their desires, innate or otherwise. I’ve asked the DTI and ACAS about this, and they appear to be flummoxed. The DTI tried to tell me that there was no law against discrimination on the grounds of sexual behaviour, but then said that any behavioural discrimination would have to apply equally to both homosexuals and heterosexuals; ACAS suggested that orientation and behaviour were synonymous, which is clearly ludicrous – it implies that the desire to do something equates to actually doing it. It’s obvious (to me) what has happened here. It was always part of the homosexualist agenda to confuse the public into equating a tendency with chosen behaviour. Of course, this backfires when codified in law, because it is predicated on dishonesty. So, as far as I can see, as an employer, I could make it a condition of employment that none of my staff engage in homosexual behaviour, and as long as I applied that equally to heterosexual and homosexual staff, then it would be within the law. The alternative would be for a court to redefine a number of key words within the language.
Michael Calwell
The alternative name in certain blocks of flats in Belfast for Disability Living Allowance chimes with Leo McKinstry’s article: Drinkers’ Liquor Allowance. It is dangerous and short-sighted (or maybe it is a secret early annihilation policy) for alcoholics to be given more benefits than other ineligible ‘disabled’ as the money can only be spent one way.
Jeff Dudgeon
Comments on Dumbing down: the proof
My baby sister took the equivalent examination at the age of 10-11 in the year 1932 or 1933, becoming top student among those sitting that year from all areas of the City of Birmingham. Unfortunately, even with the resultant scholarship and book allowance the family were not able to afford the daily bus fare, or enable her to conform to the required dress code. I do so hope any such earned scholarship grant takes these details into consideration today.
Jay Gee
Comments on Just say no to Ken by Bruce Anderson
Ken should never be our leader; for one he’s in the wrong party. As for the British electorate reluctantly choosing federalism, I’d think again. They can already smell something fishy, and I don’t mean our catches in foreign nets! The Conservative Party has a responsibility to show everyone who cares about Britain’s future exactly what has already been signed away and what that means in real terms for each one of us. We want a PRO BRITISH Conservative Party and a PRO BRITISH Government from our own independent parliament. At least that’s what a few thousand voters have told me personally. If any of the members think that the only way to gain power is to divest ourselves of our Conservative values and be led by foreign powers making a mockery of our once golden democracy, perhaps they should leave our Party and take Ken with them. I hear Brussels is nice this time of year.
Mandy Worrall
Bruce Anderson is yet again playing the devil’s advocate by winding up Ken Clarke and his supporters, by pressing all the right buttons, touching Europe, idleness and the trade union controlled public services. Did I miss Ken’s forte, the economy and finances, stupid! That is the drive that the Tory party needs, after handing over a strong economy way back to Labour; the party needs a strong thrust at what has become Labour’s claim to fame. Ken is the leader needed to retrieve most of the Tory clothes stolen by Labour! Of ideas there are many, but it is opposition action the Tory party and the country at large needs and deserves. Yes, despite his previous rejections by the party and his non-visionary stance on terrorism and Iraq war, Ken is the man to vote for!
Wally Keill
I entirely agree with Bruce Anderson’s comments. I have always supported the Conservatives but cannot see how I could possibly vote for Ken Clarke given his views on Europe. I also believe that the Tory party members – of which I am one – should retain a vote on the leadership.
Tom Whinder
Comments