Rongone wrote:

TheLagerLad wrote:

Rongone wrote:

 



Who wrote that cynical piece of BS?

Some guy names Mark Steyn, who frankly I don't know much about. But on that article, (minus the climate change stuff) I agree.

 

Yeah . . . I figured it was one of those holier than thou, right wing bloggers who write for such rags as the National Review. Stern is revered by people like Roger Ailes, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Kristol. Aside from his denier views on climate change, Steyn is an islamaphobe. Stern is typical of the sanctimonious commentator that views events from afar and attempts to crucify anyone that has the chutzpah to disagree with his theories. I am always amused by pundits that advocate for all out war against opposing countries while they, themselves, have never spent one minute in uniform to defend their country. Here are some snippets from Steyn's background:




Eurabia
Steyn believes that what he describes as "Eurabia", a future where the European continent is dominated by Islam, is an imminent reality that cannot be reversed. "Every Continental under the age of 40—make that 60, if not 75—is all but guaranteed to end his days living in an Islamified Europe."[21] "Native populations on the continent are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic."[22]

In his book America Alone, Steyn posits that Muslim population growth has already contributed to a modern European genocide:[23]

Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since the second World War? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can't buck demography—except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

When some left-wing critics claimed Steyn was advocating genocide in this passage, he wrote:[24]

My book isn't about what I want to happen but what I think will happen. Given Fascism, Communism and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, it's not hard to foresee that the neo-nationalist resurgence already under way in parts of Europe will at some point take a violent form. ... I think any descent into neo-fascism will be ineffectual and therefore merely a temporary blip in the remorseless transformation of the Continent.

Criticism of multiculturalism Edit

Steyn has commented on divisions between the Western world and the Islamic world. He criticizes the tolerance of what he calls "Islamic cultural intolerance." Steyn argues that multiculturalism only requires feeling good about other cultures and is "fundamentally a fraud ... subliminally accepted on that basis."[25]

In Jewish World Review, Steyn argues "Multiculturalism means that the worst attributes of Muslim culture—the subjugation of women—combine with the worst attributes of Western culture—licence and self-gratification." He states, "I am not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture—rule of law, universal suffrage—is preferable to Arab culture."
 



Oooohhhhh . . . Now I understand . . . He's a culturist, not a racist. That clarifies his position.

"It was clear as mud, but it covered de groun' ". West Indian saying.

Ok, I happily withdraw the article. 

We have a huge problem here.

What Goose said.

Goose, are you going to put on your uniform and lead a platoon of men into combat?

Have you ever been in a combat situation in defense of your country?

BTW, FDR never heard a shot fired in anger and he was allowed to put forth ideas about a really substantial conflict.

The Constitution does not require military service to offer ideas about what the country should do in a situation.

So tell me, how's that coaltion of Arab armies coming along?

I have given this a great amount of thought over the course of several years. I was initially very much against intervention. I can assure you that I have not been cavalier about this.
I wish that you could counter my arguments with thoughts rather than insults.
It is exptremely disappointing.

BTW, what is it about your military service that makes your opinion here the final word?

I've seen you comment on politics. Have you ever held elected office? Are you a political scientist?

Rongone wrote:

Uh oh . . . I must have hit a nerve . . . You are insulted.

Well, I've learned enough over the years on this and the old exchange that it's senseless to try to carry on a reasonable conversation when you go off like this. So, I'm going to sign off for now.

Run Forrest, run.

You didn't "strike a nerve".
I feel insulted because you insulted me. It's really very simple.
You didn't like my opinion about combating ISIS, and instead of offering a counter argument in a way that demonstrates mutual respect, you took the low road, and tried to ridicule me.