Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
Participantgandalf: Geez, you always throw lots of stuff out late at night. I’m reading this really good book and now I’m torn between reading that and responding here.
So, I’ll do the compromise thing and address part of what you said and come back to the remainder tomorrow.
As far as Iraq goes: I am torn, mainly because I did support the case for war and not due to the rationale of having a forward base of operations. I did find the casus belli somewhat compelling and, after Halabja and chem use during Iran-Iraq War and Saddam’s attempts to weaponize botulin, etc, etc, etc, I thought that removing him would have a salutary effect on the region. Had the war been prosecuted more efficiently (according to the DepState plan) we might be looking at a different equation. Of course, as my uncle said, If your aunt had wheels she’d be a teacart, and we’re not. I think we finish what we started and GTFO as soon as proves practicable (and by that I would defer to the theater commander).
Shit. I didn’t want to do chapter and verse on Iraq, but wanted to address the baby boomer question. I agree. I’m 43 and pissed at hell at these self-indulgent, Harley driving, Viagra popping, little pissants. Let the 60s and Vietnam go, man, and get with the program. I am all for new blood and remembering that 1968 is 40 years in the friggin’ past now. That is my major issue with these aging, counterculture “red diaper baby” leftists. They are all rooted in the past, with a soundtrack provided by Bob Dylan, but they all drive Benzes or Beemers and have vacation homes and mutual funds. Viva la revolucion, baby!
I’m with you on the issue of change, I just don’t agree that the agent of change is Obama. It sure as hell ain’t McCain, either (obviously).
Participantgandalf: Geez, you always throw lots of stuff out late at night. I’m reading this really good book and now I’m torn between reading that and responding here.
So, I’ll do the compromise thing and address part of what you said and come back to the remainder tomorrow.
As far as Iraq goes: I am torn, mainly because I did support the case for war and not due to the rationale of having a forward base of operations. I did find the casus belli somewhat compelling and, after Halabja and chem use during Iran-Iraq War and Saddam’s attempts to weaponize botulin, etc, etc, etc, I thought that removing him would have a salutary effect on the region. Had the war been prosecuted more efficiently (according to the DepState plan) we might be looking at a different equation. Of course, as my uncle said, If your aunt had wheels she’d be a teacart, and we’re not. I think we finish what we started and GTFO as soon as proves practicable (and by that I would defer to the theater commander).
Shit. I didn’t want to do chapter and verse on Iraq, but wanted to address the baby boomer question. I agree. I’m 43 and pissed at hell at these self-indulgent, Harley driving, Viagra popping, little pissants. Let the 60s and Vietnam go, man, and get with the program. I am all for new blood and remembering that 1968 is 40 years in the friggin’ past now. That is my major issue with these aging, counterculture “red diaper baby” leftists. They are all rooted in the past, with a soundtrack provided by Bob Dylan, but they all drive Benzes or Beemers and have vacation homes and mutual funds. Viva la revolucion, baby!
I’m with you on the issue of change, I just don’t agree that the agent of change is Obama. It sure as hell ain’t McCain, either (obviously).
Participantgandalf: Geez, you always throw lots of stuff out late at night. I’m reading this really good book and now I’m torn between reading that and responding here.
So, I’ll do the compromise thing and address part of what you said and come back to the remainder tomorrow.
As far as Iraq goes: I am torn, mainly because I did support the case for war and not due to the rationale of having a forward base of operations. I did find the casus belli somewhat compelling and, after Halabja and chem use during Iran-Iraq War and Saddam’s attempts to weaponize botulin, etc, etc, etc, I thought that removing him would have a salutary effect on the region. Had the war been prosecuted more efficiently (according to the DepState plan) we might be looking at a different equation. Of course, as my uncle said, If your aunt had wheels she’d be a teacart, and we’re not. I think we finish what we started and GTFO as soon as proves practicable (and by that I would defer to the theater commander).
Shit. I didn’t want to do chapter and verse on Iraq, but wanted to address the baby boomer question. I agree. I’m 43 and pissed at hell at these self-indulgent, Harley driving, Viagra popping, little pissants. Let the 60s and Vietnam go, man, and get with the program. I am all for new blood and remembering that 1968 is 40 years in the friggin’ past now. That is my major issue with these aging, counterculture “red diaper baby” leftists. They are all rooted in the past, with a soundtrack provided by Bob Dylan, but they all drive Benzes or Beemers and have vacation homes and mutual funds. Viva la revolucion, baby!
I’m with you on the issue of change, I just don’t agree that the agent of change is Obama. It sure as hell ain’t McCain, either (obviously).
Participantgandalf: I would argue the point that Obama has not held these positions for a couple of years, rather you are seeing the influence of people like Tony Lake in Obama’s campaign.
Obama is strongly pushing his original opposition to the war in Iraq, but the latest (fairly nuanced) foreign policy positions are new and the result of advice received from experienced policy hands like Lake.
I would still hold what Joe Biden said at the outset of the campaign, and that was that Obama was a foreign policy dilettante. Yes, this was simply a result of his being a newbie and lacking the requisite time and experience.
The Zakaria article went to great lengths and even greater pains to establish Obama’s “conservative” and “realistic” chops, but the fact remains that there is no body of evidence to support it.
You mention the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and it is a plum posting, especially for a junior Senator like Obama. However, what did he do there? I’m actually asking because I don’t know. It is worth looking at and looking up and would prove edifying to say the least.
As I said earlier, I could care less about his resume. I’m less interested in the shiny paint job and more interested in what’s under the hood.
I am also finding some of his latest policy shifts (NAFTA, FISA, gun control) of particular interest. This tacking back to center is going to create a little agida amongst the Dem true believers, no?
Participantgandalf: I would argue the point that Obama has not held these positions for a couple of years, rather you are seeing the influence of people like Tony Lake in Obama’s campaign.
Obama is strongly pushing his original opposition to the war in Iraq, but the latest (fairly nuanced) foreign policy positions are new and the result of advice received from experienced policy hands like Lake.
I would still hold what Joe Biden said at the outset of the campaign, and that was that Obama was a foreign policy dilettante. Yes, this was simply a result of his being a newbie and lacking the requisite time and experience.
The Zakaria article went to great lengths and even greater pains to establish Obama’s “conservative” and “realistic” chops, but the fact remains that there is no body of evidence to support it.
You mention the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and it is a plum posting, especially for a junior Senator like Obama. However, what did he do there? I’m actually asking because I don’t know. It is worth looking at and looking up and would prove edifying to say the least.
As I said earlier, I could care less about his resume. I’m less interested in the shiny paint job and more interested in what’s under the hood.
I am also finding some of his latest policy shifts (NAFTA, FISA, gun control) of particular interest. This tacking back to center is going to create a little agida amongst the Dem true believers, no?
Participantgandalf: I would argue the point that Obama has not held these positions for a couple of years, rather you are seeing the influence of people like Tony Lake in Obama’s campaign.
Obama is strongly pushing his original opposition to the war in Iraq, but the latest (fairly nuanced) foreign policy positions are new and the result of advice received from experienced policy hands like Lake.
I would still hold what Joe Biden said at the outset of the campaign, and that was that Obama was a foreign policy dilettante. Yes, this was simply a result of his being a newbie and lacking the requisite time and experience.
The Zakaria article went to great lengths and even greater pains to establish Obama’s “conservative” and “realistic” chops, but the fact remains that there is no body of evidence to support it.
You mention the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and it is a plum posting, especially for a junior Senator like Obama. However, what did he do there? I’m actually asking because I don’t know. It is worth looking at and looking up and would prove edifying to say the least.
As I said earlier, I could care less about his resume. I’m less interested in the shiny paint job and more interested in what’s under the hood.
I am also finding some of his latest policy shifts (NAFTA, FISA, gun control) of particular interest. This tacking back to center is going to create a little agida amongst the Dem true believers, no?
Participantgandalf: I would argue the point that Obama has not held these positions for a couple of years, rather you are seeing the influence of people like Tony Lake in Obama’s campaign.
Obama is strongly pushing his original opposition to the war in Iraq, but the latest (fairly nuanced) foreign policy positions are new and the result of advice received from experienced policy hands like Lake.
I would still hold what Joe Biden said at the outset of the campaign, and that was that Obama was a foreign policy dilettante. Yes, this was simply a result of his being a newbie and lacking the requisite time and experience.
The Zakaria article went to great lengths and even greater pains to establish Obama’s “conservative” and “realistic” chops, but the fact remains that there is no body of evidence to support it.
You mention the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and it is a plum posting, especially for a junior Senator like Obama. However, what did he do there? I’m actually asking because I don’t know. It is worth looking at and looking up and would prove edifying to say the least.
As I said earlier, I could care less about his resume. I’m less interested in the shiny paint job and more interested in what’s under the hood.
I am also finding some of his latest policy shifts (NAFTA, FISA, gun control) of particular interest. This tacking back to center is going to create a little agida amongst the Dem true believers, no?
Participantgandalf: I would argue the point that Obama has not held these positions for a couple of years, rather you are seeing the influence of people like Tony Lake in Obama’s campaign.
Obama is strongly pushing his original opposition to the war in Iraq, but the latest (fairly nuanced) foreign policy positions are new and the result of advice received from experienced policy hands like Lake.
I would still hold what Joe Biden said at the outset of the campaign, and that was that Obama was a foreign policy dilettante. Yes, this was simply a result of his being a newbie and lacking the requisite time and experience.
The Zakaria article went to great lengths and even greater pains to establish Obama’s “conservative” and “realistic” chops, but the fact remains that there is no body of evidence to support it.
You mention the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and it is a plum posting, especially for a junior Senator like Obama. However, what did he do there? I’m actually asking because I don’t know. It is worth looking at and looking up and would prove edifying to say the least.
As I said earlier, I could care less about his resume. I’m less interested in the shiny paint job and more interested in what’s under the hood.
I am also finding some of his latest policy shifts (NAFTA, FISA, gun control) of particular interest. This tacking back to center is going to create a little agida amongst the Dem true believers, no?
Participanttoots: I think the danger is confusing patriotism with nationalism.
Patriotism is the love of one’s country and the recognition that countries, like people, make mistakes, or lose their way or forget what really matters.
Nationalism, on the other hand, is the bunch of us sitting around a bonfire of burning books and singing “Deutschland Uber Alles”.
Subtle difference, but important.
You don’t have to justify your patriotism to anyone for the simple reason that everyone’s explanation is different. And that is what makes America truly great.
Participanttoots: I think the danger is confusing patriotism with nationalism.
Patriotism is the love of one’s country and the recognition that countries, like people, make mistakes, or lose their way or forget what really matters.
Nationalism, on the other hand, is the bunch of us sitting around a bonfire of burning books and singing “Deutschland Uber Alles”.
Subtle difference, but important.
You don’t have to justify your patriotism to anyone for the simple reason that everyone’s explanation is different. And that is what makes America truly great.
Participanttoots: I think the danger is confusing patriotism with nationalism.
Patriotism is the love of one’s country and the recognition that countries, like people, make mistakes, or lose their way or forget what really matters.
Nationalism, on the other hand, is the bunch of us sitting around a bonfire of burning books and singing “Deutschland Uber Alles”.
Subtle difference, but important.
You don’t have to justify your patriotism to anyone for the simple reason that everyone’s explanation is different. And that is what makes America truly great.
Participanttoots: I think the danger is confusing patriotism with nationalism.
Patriotism is the love of one’s country and the recognition that countries, like people, make mistakes, or lose their way or forget what really matters.
Nationalism, on the other hand, is the bunch of us sitting around a bonfire of burning books and singing “Deutschland Uber Alles”.
Subtle difference, but important.
You don’t have to justify your patriotism to anyone for the simple reason that everyone’s explanation is different. And that is what makes America truly great.
Participanttoots: I think the danger is confusing patriotism with nationalism.
Patriotism is the love of one’s country and the recognition that countries, like people, make mistakes, or lose their way or forget what really matters.
Nationalism, on the other hand, is the bunch of us sitting around a bonfire of burning books and singing “Deutschland Uber Alles”.
Subtle difference, but important.
You don’t have to justify your patriotism to anyone for the simple reason that everyone’s explanation is different. And that is what makes America truly great.
ParticipantDan,
I need to clarify what I mean by leftists, as the word and the movement can sometimes get tangled. When I say leftist, I am speaking of the “red diaper baby” radicals of the 1960s. When I say liberal, I mean those that are not radical and/or reactionary.
I am an arch-conservative Republican, but have no truck with the latest iteration of the Republican Party. Dubya is not a conservative Republican to me, and his policies and politics show that. Nor is McCain, for that matter. Obama remains something of a cipher to me, largely because there is not enough history behind him and, beyond the beautiful rhetoric, I have been unable to really seize onto anything of substance.
Why do I find the radical Left (capital “L”) contemptible? Because they represent the worst excesses of an elitist intelligentsia that is completely divorced from any sort of objective reality. I used Susan Sontag as an example for a reason. I would include Ward Churchill, Gore Vidal and even Janeane Garofalo in there as well. From the PC movement to the politics of identity, you smell the strong odor of Soviet groupthink and intellectual fascism. Those who control the language do control the culture, and these people have done everything in their power to stifle dissent and debate and impose a monolithic mindset that demands conformity at the risk of ostracism, or worse.
So we’re clear: I would turn to the other end of the spectrum and include Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh also. The Far Right is not immune from the same sort of moral infantilism, it just smells differently.
I find Iran dangerous solely because of the volatility of the region. Iran’s president is bent on provocation and with Israel’s history of hair trigger responses, you run the very real risk of a rapid escalation that moves beyond any one player’s ability to control things.
-
AuthorPosts
