[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to think about #1 before answering.

On #2: What do you think the Arab world would have done if the US occupied the country of Mecca and Medina? Hol-ee cow! I can only imagine the repercussions if that had happened.

On #3: Good question. I think our willingness to engage them diplomatically at this point is both good and bad. Good in that it signals to the people of Iran that we are not intransigent and are willing to give negotiation a shot. Bad in that signals to the hardliners of that country that the US is willing to parlay in spite of our abhorrence of that regime. I cannot help but think that I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket and his cohort are laughing their asses off at us right now. This must be perceived as a show of weakness and it exposes Bush as a true lame duck who is ideologically adrift even within his own party.

I would throw a #1 back at you: What does the changed state of the war in Iraq do as far as the landscape and politics of the region go? I have two friends in country in Iraq, one is a Major and the other a LTC. Both report how quiet things are, the markedly changed mood among US soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and police and the populace at large. Both of them are discussing the war in terms of it being won and both of them were discussing the war as a potential lost cause as little as a year ago.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to think about #1 before answering.

On #2: What do you think the Arab world would have done if the US occupied the country of Mecca and Medina? Hol-ee cow! I can only imagine the repercussions if that had happened.

On #3: Good question. I think our willingness to engage them diplomatically at this point is both good and bad. Good in that it signals to the people of Iran that we are not intransigent and are willing to give negotiation a shot. Bad in that signals to the hardliners of that country that the US is willing to parlay in spite of our abhorrence of that regime. I cannot help but think that I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket and his cohort are laughing their asses off at us right now. This must be perceived as a show of weakness and it exposes Bush as a true lame duck who is ideologically adrift even within his own party.

I would throw a #1 back at you: What does the changed state of the war in Iraq do as far as the landscape and politics of the region go? I have two friends in country in Iraq, one is a Major and the other a LTC. Both report how quiet things are, the markedly changed mood among US soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and police and the populace at large. Both of them are discussing the war in terms of it being won and both of them were discussing the war as a potential lost cause as little as a year ago.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to think about #1 before answering.

On #2: What do you think the Arab world would have done if the US occupied the country of Mecca and Medina? Hol-ee cow! I can only imagine the repercussions if that had happened.

On #3: Good question. I think our willingness to engage them diplomatically at this point is both good and bad. Good in that it signals to the people of Iran that we are not intransigent and are willing to give negotiation a shot. Bad in that signals to the hardliners of that country that the US is willing to parlay in spite of our abhorrence of that regime. I cannot help but think that I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket and his cohort are laughing their asses off at us right now. This must be perceived as a show of weakness and it exposes Bush as a true lame duck who is ideologically adrift even within his own party.

I would throw a #1 back at you: What does the changed state of the war in Iraq do as far as the landscape and politics of the region go? I have two friends in country in Iraq, one is a Major and the other a LTC. Both report how quiet things are, the markedly changed mood among US soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and police and the populace at large. Both of them are discussing the war in terms of it being won and both of them were discussing the war as a potential lost cause as little as a year ago.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to think about #1 before answering.

On #2: What do you think the Arab world would have done if the US occupied the country of Mecca and Medina? Hol-ee cow! I can only imagine the repercussions if that had happened.

On #3: Good question. I think our willingness to engage them diplomatically at this point is both good and bad. Good in that it signals to the people of Iran that we are not intransigent and are willing to give negotiation a shot. Bad in that signals to the hardliners of that country that the US is willing to parlay in spite of our abhorrence of that regime. I cannot help but think that I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket and his cohort are laughing their asses off at us right now. This must be perceived as a show of weakness and it exposes Bush as a true lame duck who is ideologically adrift even within his own party.

I would throw a #1 back at you: What does the changed state of the war in Iraq do as far as the landscape and politics of the region go? I have two friends in country in Iraq, one is a Major and the other a LTC. Both report how quiet things are, the markedly changed mood among US soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and police and the populace at large. Both of them are discussing the war in terms of it being won and both of them were discussing the war as a potential lost cause as little as a year ago.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to think about #1 before answering.

On #2: What do you think the Arab world would have done if the US occupied the country of Mecca and Medina? Hol-ee cow! I can only imagine the repercussions if that had happened.

On #3: Good question. I think our willingness to engage them diplomatically at this point is both good and bad. Good in that it signals to the people of Iran that we are not intransigent and are willing to give negotiation a shot. Bad in that signals to the hardliners of that country that the US is willing to parlay in spite of our abhorrence of that regime. I cannot help but think that I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket and his cohort are laughing their asses off at us right now. This must be perceived as a show of weakness and it exposes Bush as a true lame duck who is ideologically adrift even within his own party.

I would throw a #1 back at you: What does the changed state of the war in Iraq do as far as the landscape and politics of the region go? I have two friends in country in Iraq, one is a Major and the other a LTC. Both report how quiet things are, the markedly changed mood among US soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and police and the populace at large. Both of them are discussing the war in terms of it being won and both of them were discussing the war as a potential lost cause as little as a year ago.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

toots: I think there needs to be a distinction between liberals and left-wingers. I think the word “liberal” is a good word, and not a pejorative, but I loathe left-wingers.

As I’m sure gandalf would be the first to tell you, I am extremely conservative, in the old school Goldwater Republican camp. I would never accuse a liberal of hating their country, but would accuse a left-winger of doing so.

It is much akin to Susan Sontag opining after 9/11 that we “deserved” it. While I feel that our foreign policy in the Middle East has run between complete ignorance and ineptitude, claiming that Osama bin Laden was justified in his actions is beyond the pale and contemptible.

I don’t hold that we are above criticism. To the contrary, I believe that we need to change our approach in that part of the world and that the past 50 years have shown significant errors in our relationships and our strategies. Support for countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to come back to haunt us, and we need to see that part of the world in a whole new way.

All of that being said, however, I don’t feel that either of the candidates is a good choice for that particular job. I have McCain on one hand openly advocating the bombing of Iran and Obama on the other completely missing the point as to why Iran should not have The Bomb.

[Author]

Posts