OK, I'll spell it all out. I assumed that you had read the site that you linked to but this is what MH said:
"Sami Ramadani - a refugee from Saddam, saved by Britain, given a fantastic job as a senior lecturer at a British university and a great new life. And how does he repay Britain? By openly defending the "resistance" that is killing brave British troops in Iraq - the very troops that have liberated his country from Saddam."
Crackerjack (presumably sarcastically (that's a specific type of verbal irony where you say the opposite of what you mean, usually for emphasis)) said:
"So presumably this guy just turned up at immigration one day and was 'given' this marvellous job without having to show any qualifications whatsoever? Aren't 'we' wonderful."
I assumed he was taking issue with MH's use of the word "given" as I said above. Implicit in that is criticism of the position that because you work in England you can't criticise the country.
That's hardly despicable (well, different strokes I guess)
I dunno, you (rightly I thought) took issue with HMLT when he said you were evil because you were a "capitalist" - your point was that you both want what's best and just differ on how to go about it. I think MH is using just the same tactic that you argued with before.
Is it despicable? I don't know, it's pretty low to imply that Guardian staff/readers want thousands (and thousands) of people to die and live in a destabilised, violent squalor just to prove that they were right. The unfortunate situation is that they were right, that's all.
How would you feel if (say) you had gone to a far away country and risked your life to topple a terrible dictator only to have your efforts constantly disparaged and talked down as "imperialism" or a war for oil?
I feel very sorry for soldiers who have risked their life in this war. I'm still allowed to have an opinion on the war though aren't I? Or do I just have to "support our boys"? One of the constant cheap tactics employed by our rulers to deflect criticism is to say that any criticism of the war is a betrayal of our soldiers - I have to say I didn't expect to hear that from you Vimothy.
Some might say that they have been betrayed by the government that took them there and that arguing against is in their best interests, either way the debate itself is surely not a betrayal.
The left doesn't have a good track record on these things (fighting tyrants) yet maintains its holier than thou attitude through thick and thin.
Well, does the right?
"What if Iraq acheives the stable democracy status which the US military is fighting for, will that be a further example of US imperialism? Will that be to the credit of the activists I see regularly in town, campaigning to "end the occupation of Muslim lands"? Will it be to the credit of Fisk, the Guardian or antiwar.com?"
If, by magic (or other means) Iraq stabilises tomorrow and every person there is happy and lives together for ever that means that people asking for the troops to come home were wrong in their analysis, it doesn't mean they were evil.