Comments (10)

• J. H. Huebert

  You'll get no argument from me on the inappropriateness of death for Christians or suttee. Still, I am somehow disinclined to rank a lack of "cultural confidence" -- particularly vis a vis the Middle East -- very high among the present administration's many problems.

  Published: March 26, 2006 6:54 PM

• Marcus Epstein

  The only useful thing I can takeaway from the column is that the British were much better imperialists than us.

  I agree that America and the west should not bend their own values in the face of multiculturalism. For example, assuming we let in immigrants from countries that have such abhorrent practices, we should not allow them to allow them insofar as they interfere with our own laws and customs.

  HOWEVER, we already invaded Afghanistan once to throw out a theocratic Muslim regime, and they still are committing such atrocities. We invaded Iraq to throwout a tyrranical regime, and it looks like they may introduce Sharia law. Yes, what they are doing is terrible, but what exactly does the US expect to do about this if we do not invade (at least twice) and colonize all countries who have practices that we deem abhorrent. In fact, I would not be surprised if this is what Mr. Steyn wants.

  Published: March 26, 2006 7:31 PM

• The Crawling Chaos

  All arguments are red herrings. He who has the most guns wins. All concessions are forced.
  

  Published: March 27, 2006 1:29 AM

• P.M.Lawrence

  Crawling Chaos, you are effectively echoing Mao Tse Tung's line about "power comes out of the muzzle of a gun". He, however, was employing a rhetorical trick to distract people, the way conjurers do.

  Although it was tue as far as it went, it essentially distracts from a much deeper question: the superior person asks, where does the gun come from?

  The answer to that (which will vary) provides a guide to right conduct.
  

  Published: March 27, 2006 2:52 AM

• Ryan Fuller

  Another great part of the article:

  "As always, we come back to the words of Osama bin Laden: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." That's really the only issue: The Islamists know our side have tanks and planes, but they have will and faith, and they reckon in a long struggle that's the better bet. Most prominent Western leaders sound way too eager to climb into the weak-horse suit and audition to play the rear end."

  How very true.

  Published: March 27, 2006 3:15 AM

• Stefan Karlsson

  This is a good point: "You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense."

  But the problem is that the neocons think that we must sacrifice ourselves to create democracy. But virtually all reports indicate that a overwhelming majority of Afghans support the execution of Rahman and anyone else who renounces Islam. Just as we've seen majorities vote for theocratic parties in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria and the Palestinian territories. Meaning that to support democracy in the Middle East is really to support Islamic theocracy.

  Published: March 27, 2006 10:37 AM

• D. Saul Weiner

  This is a good point: "You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense."

  So don't send those Christian soldiers. Problem solved.

  Published: March 27, 2006 12:15 PM

• Paul Edwards

  "All arguments are red herrings."

  Some arguments are red herrings. But to those who are interested in justice, the argument is fundamental and essential to address whatever the central issue might be. All people who make arguments at least pretend to and usually really do attempt to justify their views. And it is only through the argument that we can discern which views are and which views are not justified.
  

  Published: March 27, 2006 1:13 PM

• William Ott

  The simple point is that the British should have not been use the usual means of control: confiscation, coersion and ultimately mureder in running India. Similarly, the current tough guy on the block, the USA would be wise to stop its emperial ambitions as well.

  The smart folks stay out of local politics and just rely on commerce to speak for them.

  Furthermore, the generals comments echo the "Eye for an eye" philosophy. And a bad philosophy that is.

  Published: March 27, 2006 7:27 PM

• Graeme Bird

  I'd seen that quote before. I'd seen it used by a terrific Australian historian called Keith Windschuttle.

  Such a cool quote for the pure goose-pimples provoking righteousness of it all.

  Windschuttle is being constantly abused by the usual tax-eating suspects in my country. Windschuttle is always referring to an Australian philosopher called David Stove.

  I would urge Austrians and objectivists to look into this David Stove character. Now I'm not sure whether or to what extent Stove was influenced or inspired by Ayn Rand. But he does these marvellous hatchet-jobs on modern philosophers.

  And he's a laugh a minute sort of philosopher too. Which is quite a novelty.

  http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/davidstove.html

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stove

  My goodness William Ott. That's besides the point isn't it. The main thing is that you don't assume the British are better or worse then the other guys running things. And in the case stated their way was clearly better and they saved untold women from being burned alive for chauvinist (to put it mildly) reasons.

  What a callous and ungallant thing to say.

  What are they doing to you young blokes at these Universities? Where you no longer think that part of the male role is to look out for the women?

  I would wonder if they might not be putting something in the water.
  

  Published: March 30, 2006 5:19 AM