[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Except I’m not occupying the moral high ground at all: You are.

I think an objective view of history simply holds that those that have power, exercise power. Sometimes the theory of “benevolent despotism” holds sway and other times those in power are too depraved to care.

The US has aspired to the higher good in some instances (like WWII) and in others was largely trying to ensure a balance of power, not unlike the British at the height of their powers. Also like the British, our present policies are being driven by energy needs to maintain our position in the world and we’re going to find and control that energy using the means at our disposal.

I don’t think of the world in terms of good and bad, I think of the world in terms of bad and worse. Human nature being what it is, I do believe, however, that the US, on balance, is one helluva better choice than a lot of the alternatives (Russia, China, etc) and maybe not so good as certain others (Canada, Sweden, etc), especially when one considers what the US has to do to maintain our position.

Having been where I’ve been and seen what I’ve seen, I gave up on the notion of moral high ground a long time ago, the way I also realized that those John Wayne movies of my childhood were selling a product to the American people that simply didn’t exist. However, Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington, DC all realize that the truth generally tastes pretty sour and will go down a lot easier if you sugarcoat it with some nice propaganda.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.

I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.

You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.

This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.

I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.

You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.

This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.

I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.

You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.

This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.

I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.

You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.

This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re as biased as anyone in your reading of history, especially if what you present is so one-sided as to be completely off the beam.

I’ve participated in a war on behalf of this country that I felt was wrong. However, as I look back, I realize that sometimes the choices aren’t right or wrong, or black and white. Sometimes the choices are bad or worse. And, on balance, what we did ultimately was for a greater good.

You want to have the right to present your argument, but no interest in accepting that there are opposing points of view or that the argument itself is incomplete or flawed. How is that open-minded? I wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner, I just asked some questions.

This is akin to those people who walk around wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara on them. Somehow Che has become cool and hip and not at all the murdering Stalinist thug he actually was and poster boy for a system that ultimately killed 100 million people. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective, huh? That’s the cool thing about moral equivalency: Everybody, no matter how wrong they are, gets to be right.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?

Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.

Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?

I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?

Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.

Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?

I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?

Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.

Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?

I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?

Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.

Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?

I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Let me put a question to you bluntly. Did or did not the Arab armies (of various countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc) attack Israel in 1956, 1967 (Israel’s airstrike pre-empted an impending Arab attack) and 1973 with the stated intent of wiping Israel from the map? Yes or no?

Israel has a right to exist, which many of the neighboring Arab countries deny, and a right of self-defense. Israel, unlike many or most of her Arab neighbors, enjoys the rule of law and a democratic vote.

Relative to your quote about regional imperialism, what about Nasser’s Pan-Arabism or Saddam Hussein’s vision of himself as the new Salah-al-Din (Saladin)? Better yet, what about al-Qaeda’s worldview, as seen from the vantage point of 14th century Caliphate that demands total obeisance?

I would argue that your point of view is anything but unbiased. Present ALL the facts. That’s unbiased.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: You haven’t broken any rules, you’re simply expressing your opinion. I don’t agree with parts of it, and I do agree with other parts.

It’s a simplistic view of both history and foreign policy. To posit that America is just a rapacious, slavering war machine is facile and incorrect and it doesn’t square with history.

However, there are elements that are correct and we need to substantially review and revise how we behave in the world, on that score you’re correct.

I find the notion that all conservatives are bible thumping Jesus lovers with no ability to think for themselves or formulate coherent sentences as both puerile and condescending. Several of the posters on this board think similarly and the irony is that notion is more fitting to their way of thinking and expression.

The idea that the Middle East in toto has been nothing other than a victim of the West and history is moral infantilism and used conveniently by the Left as a means of forgiveness for all the acts of terrorism and horror that the various groups in the region have perpetrated on us and their coreligionists.

Visibly absent from your timeline are the so-called “Arab-Israeli Wars” of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. It shows the 1967 war as an Israeli attack, when in fact it was a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies massing against them.

If you’re going to present facts, present them ALL.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: You haven’t broken any rules, you’re simply expressing your opinion. I don’t agree with parts of it, and I do agree with other parts.

It’s a simplistic view of both history and foreign policy. To posit that America is just a rapacious, slavering war machine is facile and incorrect and it doesn’t square with history.

However, there are elements that are correct and we need to substantially review and revise how we behave in the world, on that score you’re correct.

I find the notion that all conservatives are bible thumping Jesus lovers with no ability to think for themselves or formulate coherent sentences as both puerile and condescending. Several of the posters on this board think similarly and the irony is that notion is more fitting to their way of thinking and expression.

The idea that the Middle East in toto has been nothing other than a victim of the West and history is moral infantilism and used conveniently by the Left as a means of forgiveness for all the acts of terrorism and horror that the various groups in the region have perpetrated on us and their coreligionists.

Visibly absent from your timeline are the so-called “Arab-Israeli Wars” of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. It shows the 1967 war as an Israeli attack, when in fact it was a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies massing against them.

If you’re going to present facts, present them ALL.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: You haven’t broken any rules, you’re simply expressing your opinion. I don’t agree with parts of it, and I do agree with other parts.

It’s a simplistic view of both history and foreign policy. To posit that America is just a rapacious, slavering war machine is facile and incorrect and it doesn’t square with history.

However, there are elements that are correct and we need to substantially review and revise how we behave in the world, on that score you’re correct.

I find the notion that all conservatives are bible thumping Jesus lovers with no ability to think for themselves or formulate coherent sentences as both puerile and condescending. Several of the posters on this board think similarly and the irony is that notion is more fitting to their way of thinking and expression.

The idea that the Middle East in toto has been nothing other than a victim of the West and history is moral infantilism and used conveniently by the Left as a means of forgiveness for all the acts of terrorism and horror that the various groups in the region have perpetrated on us and their coreligionists.

Visibly absent from your timeline are the so-called “Arab-Israeli Wars” of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. It shows the 1967 war as an Israeli attack, when in fact it was a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies massing against them.

If you’re going to present facts, present them ALL.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: You haven’t broken any rules, you’re simply expressing your opinion. I don’t agree with parts of it, and I do agree with other parts.

It’s a simplistic view of both history and foreign policy. To posit that America is just a rapacious, slavering war machine is facile and incorrect and it doesn’t square with history.

However, there are elements that are correct and we need to substantially review and revise how we behave in the world, on that score you’re correct.

I find the notion that all conservatives are bible thumping Jesus lovers with no ability to think for themselves or formulate coherent sentences as both puerile and condescending. Several of the posters on this board think similarly and the irony is that notion is more fitting to their way of thinking and expression.

The idea that the Middle East in toto has been nothing other than a victim of the West and history is moral infantilism and used conveniently by the Left as a means of forgiveness for all the acts of terrorism and horror that the various groups in the region have perpetrated on us and their coreligionists.

Visibly absent from your timeline are the so-called “Arab-Israeli Wars” of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. It shows the 1967 war as an Israeli attack, when in fact it was a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies massing against them.

If you’re going to present facts, present them ALL.

[Author]

Posts