[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: In one of my earlier posts, I suggested looking at Obama’s voting record and his stance on various issues. Combined with his inexperience on the world stage and with foreign policy matters, what evidence do you have that he will govern from the center and cross the aisle?

He is among the more left leaning politicians we have (not saying this as a pejorative, but based on his voting record), and he votes party line nearly without fail.

His suggested policy of engagement includes “peer to peer” discussions with rogue states like Syria, as well as muscular interventionism into sovereign nations like Pakistan (although, in fairness, this particular idea was probably motivated by the fact that he was unaware that Pakistan was a sovereign nation).

I am saying all of this because it does fly in the face of the hope that Obama will prove a centrist, capable on the world stage, and a realist when it comes to recognition that many of the players we are confronting at present are anything but reasonable, rational, and willing to allow diplomacy to work.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: In one of my earlier posts, I suggested looking at Obama’s voting record and his stance on various issues. Combined with his inexperience on the world stage and with foreign policy matters, what evidence do you have that he will govern from the center and cross the aisle?

He is among the more left leaning politicians we have (not saying this as a pejorative, but based on his voting record), and he votes party line nearly without fail.

His suggested policy of engagement includes “peer to peer” discussions with rogue states like Syria, as well as muscular interventionism into sovereign nations like Pakistan (although, in fairness, this particular idea was probably motivated by the fact that he was unaware that Pakistan was a sovereign nation).

I am saying all of this because it does fly in the face of the hope that Obama will prove a centrist, capable on the world stage, and a realist when it comes to recognition that many of the players we are confronting at present are anything but reasonable, rational, and willing to allow diplomacy to work.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: In one of my earlier posts, I suggested looking at Obama’s voting record and his stance on various issues. Combined with his inexperience on the world stage and with foreign policy matters, what evidence do you have that he will govern from the center and cross the aisle?

He is among the more left leaning politicians we have (not saying this as a pejorative, but based on his voting record), and he votes party line nearly without fail.

His suggested policy of engagement includes “peer to peer” discussions with rogue states like Syria, as well as muscular interventionism into sovereign nations like Pakistan (although, in fairness, this particular idea was probably motivated by the fact that he was unaware that Pakistan was a sovereign nation).

I am saying all of this because it does fly in the face of the hope that Obama will prove a centrist, capable on the world stage, and a realist when it comes to recognition that many of the players we are confronting at present are anything but reasonable, rational, and willing to allow diplomacy to work.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: In one of my earlier posts, I suggested looking at Obama’s voting record and his stance on various issues. Combined with his inexperience on the world stage and with foreign policy matters, what evidence do you have that he will govern from the center and cross the aisle?

He is among the more left leaning politicians we have (not saying this as a pejorative, but based on his voting record), and he votes party line nearly without fail.

His suggested policy of engagement includes “peer to peer” discussions with rogue states like Syria, as well as muscular interventionism into sovereign nations like Pakistan (although, in fairness, this particular idea was probably motivated by the fact that he was unaware that Pakistan was a sovereign nation).

I am saying all of this because it does fly in the face of the hope that Obama will prove a centrist, capable on the world stage, and a realist when it comes to recognition that many of the players we are confronting at present are anything but reasonable, rational, and willing to allow diplomacy to work.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I was not trying to credit or blame you for the use of the word “neocon”. Rather, I was making the point that when that word appears in any of the posts on this thread, it is code for “brutal, fascist, imperialist exploitation”. As such, it becomes an automatic dialogue killer. If you are a labeled a neocon, then, as such, any of your opinions are without basis and should be dismissed.

As to the idea that the term “Leftist” or “Left” is benign: I disagree. We may be splitting hairs here, but I find the Left to be an entirely discredited, intellectually and morally bankrupt, infantile holdover from the counterculture movement of the 1960s. From Hillary’s invocations of the Summer of ’68, to those selfsame Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro apologists, I find the Left revisionist and repressive.

The entire Politically Correct movement (which is a product of the Left) is built on the Orwellian notion of controlling language to control culture (as if referring to someone as “physically challenged” somehow alleviates or ameloriates their condition). That is why I become suspicious when someone starts using labels like “neocon” without clearly stating the argument supporting the use of the term. The ad hominem attacks generally follow shortly thereafter. Both methods are straight out of the Red Diaper Baby Handbook.

As to Obama and how he fits into this: I made mention before that I think he is a foreign policy dilettante. He is a newbie on the scene, and cannot and should not be expected to have much experience. However, he is advancing strategies and discussing engagement as though he was a policy wonk along the lines of someone like Joe Biden. While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, I do respect his acumen and experience when it comes to foreign policy. The problem I have with Obama is the same problem that existed with JFK at the outset of his Presidency: He was no match for someone like Nikita Kruschchev, who used Kennedy’s naivete and inexperience against him ruthlessly.

Forget partisanship and focus on Obama’s voting record and tremendous lack of experience, both domestically and internationally. Being completely objective, and armed with those facts, do we believe that he is the best person for the job, especially in light of those enemies we now face?

[Author]

Posts