OT: “Obama administration warns public to expect rise in US casualties”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Nope. Not my aim and not my intent. All I asked from you was to stop putting words in my mouth and accusing me of taking the high ground.

I simply retorted with “practice what you preach”. I think you throw certain terms around without fully appreciating how they’re going to be taken. The fact I don’t agree with you doesn’t make me a fascist any more than you freely exercising your right of free speech makes you seditious.

I was simply making a point. I think you’re wrong on certain points, but correct on others. However, you don’t accord me the same rights. Where you perceive I’m not “open minded”, I morph into a war loving fascist. Well, Rus, that’s wrong. No one hates war more than a soldier and I would love nothing better than to wake up one morning and we all get along and live peacefully.

Sadly, that ain’t gonna happen. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards it, but pragmatism and realism need to hold sway.

America’s footprint on the world dictates our policy. Simple as that. And I, for one, have been the first to say we need to develop alternative sources of energy (like nuke) and get the hell out of the Middle East. I’ve said that our policies there have not been successful and have been driven by our need to maintain our supply of cheap oil (which is why we conspicuously avoided doing anything about Saudi Arabia following 9/11).

Believe whatever you want, it’s your right as an American. But don’t hang a label on me simply because I don’t concur with your stance or your worldview.

[NotCranky]

Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.

“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]

– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend

I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.

[NotCranky]

Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.

“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]

– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend

I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.

[NotCranky]

Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.

“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]

– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend

I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.

[NotCranky]

Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.

“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]

– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend

I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.

[NotCranky]

Don’t call me simplistic because I am not a warmonger and haven’t read a thousand historical and theological studies that satisfy my bias. If you don’t want to be called fascist don’t try to be so domineering in the face of arguments contrary to your immutable theories.

“War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”[3][4]

– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to Navy friend

I must say thanks for pushing my buttons though, this is good.I have more direction now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.

You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.

I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.

I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.

You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.

I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.

I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.

You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.

I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.

I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.

You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.

I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.

I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t refer to you as simplistic, I asked you to exercise better control when responding. Your argument, however, is simplistic if the only two choices are peace lover or warmonger. Talk about black and white, with absolutely no nuance and no gray.

You have an inherent bias, and that manifests itself when you are challenged on what you consider the immutability of your argument: That peace is always better than war and that we can move beyond war, to a more evolved/developed state.

I don’t agree with either supposition, although I share the hope that we’ll someday move beyond our present circumstances. I’ve seen the failure of appeasement (the willingness to sacrifice everything for peace) and I’ve seen the hopelessness of those who believe that by faith and reasoning, they can change the minds of those who only understand brutality and the mindless use of power. That recognition isn’t domineering, it’s pragmatic and realistic.

I would also argue that my historical/theological “bias” is less pronounced than yours, simply because it is objective. Human nature is human nature and it hasn’t changed in the thousands of years of recorded history and we’re not getting any better. Power is still power, money is still money and nation-states will always act in their own best self interest, just like people. If that’s a bias, then call me biased. But prove it and with something more than name calling.

[NotCranky]

I should quit while I am ahead.

[NotCranky]

I should quit while I am ahead.

[NotCranky]

I should quit while I am ahead.

[NotCranky]

I should quit while I am ahead.

[Author]

Posts