[Allan from Fallbrook]

patb: So if someone doesn’t agree with your particular sentiments on an issue, you want to see them banned?

The OT post on McCain/Obama is running at about 12 pages, and most of it (with some glaring exceptions) is entertaining and informative. Yes, there are some firebrand ideologues on both sides of the issue, but so what? It’s an election year, following what is proving to be a contentious presidency; one would expect emotions to run a little high.

Your mention of Daily Kos didn’t go unnoticed. Kos and HuffPost are famous for shouting down those that don’t agree. One of the things I do intensely dislike about Leftists is their tendency towards repression, especially with anyone deviating from the accepted ideological norm. That is censorship, pure and simple, and it has no place on this site or in this country.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

patb: So if someone doesn’t agree with your particular sentiments on an issue, you want to see them banned?

The OT post on McCain/Obama is running at about 12 pages, and most of it (with some glaring exceptions) is entertaining and informative. Yes, there are some firebrand ideologues on both sides of the issue, but so what? It’s an election year, following what is proving to be a contentious presidency; one would expect emotions to run a little high.

Your mention of Daily Kos didn’t go unnoticed. Kos and HuffPost are famous for shouting down those that don’t agree. One of the things I do intensely dislike about Leftists is their tendency towards repression, especially with anyone deviating from the accepted ideological norm. That is censorship, pure and simple, and it has no place on this site or in this country.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

patb: So if someone doesn’t agree with your particular sentiments on an issue, you want to see them banned?

The OT post on McCain/Obama is running at about 12 pages, and most of it (with some glaring exceptions) is entertaining and informative. Yes, there are some firebrand ideologues on both sides of the issue, but so what? It’s an election year, following what is proving to be a contentious presidency; one would expect emotions to run a little high.

Your mention of Daily Kos didn’t go unnoticed. Kos and HuffPost are famous for shouting down those that don’t agree. One of the things I do intensely dislike about Leftists is their tendency towards repression, especially with anyone deviating from the accepted ideological norm. That is censorship, pure and simple, and it has no place on this site or in this country.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

patb: So if someone doesn’t agree with your particular sentiments on an issue, you want to see them banned?

The OT post on McCain/Obama is running at about 12 pages, and most of it (with some glaring exceptions) is entertaining and informative. Yes, there are some firebrand ideologues on both sides of the issue, but so what? It’s an election year, following what is proving to be a contentious presidency; one would expect emotions to run a little high.

Your mention of Daily Kos didn’t go unnoticed. Kos and HuffPost are famous for shouting down those that don’t agree. One of the things I do intensely dislike about Leftists is their tendency towards repression, especially with anyone deviating from the accepted ideological norm. That is censorship, pure and simple, and it has no place on this site or in this country.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would be happy to, provided I can do it tomorrow. Just spent the entire day and night doing the 4th of July thing, so I’ll come back to this tomorrow.

Hope you all had a safe and happy Fourth.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would be happy to, provided I can do it tomorrow. Just spent the entire day and night doing the 4th of July thing, so I’ll come back to this tomorrow.

Hope you all had a safe and happy Fourth.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would be happy to, provided I can do it tomorrow. Just spent the entire day and night doing the 4th of July thing, so I’ll come back to this tomorrow.

Hope you all had a safe and happy Fourth.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would be happy to, provided I can do it tomorrow. Just spent the entire day and night doing the 4th of July thing, so I’ll come back to this tomorrow.

Hope you all had a safe and happy Fourth.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would be happy to, provided I can do it tomorrow. Just spent the entire day and night doing the 4th of July thing, so I’ll come back to this tomorrow.

Hope you all had a safe and happy Fourth.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I would also think that staying away from certain terminology would also help. The word “neocon” is used as both a pejorative and a conversation stopper. Conversely, “Leftie” or “Left” is used the same way. As far as the latter term goes, I will be the first to admit that I don’t use this term kindly, unlike the word “liberal”.

I don’t think diplomacy or negotiation are bad things. To the contrary, I fully subscribe to von Clausewitz’s notion that diplomacy and war fall at different points on the same continuum. Neville Chamberlain is indicative of “appeasement”, which is a very different thing from diplomacy. When he met with Hitler in Munich in 1938, it was to prevent war from breaking out in Europe. Hitler had been having his way and there was no reason to think this would be any different. My point is that both parties went into the meeting expecting very different things and, ironically, both came out of the meeting thinking that they had prevailed.

I don’t think engagement with Iran is a bad thing, but without any sort of military options to back up the discussions, nothing of substance will happen. The Iranians know this, hence their contemptuous dismissal of negotiations to this point.

The European track record is none too good, and I am not speaking historically, but rather over the last 15 – 20 years. The UN, NATO and the CSCE (the European security collective) all dithered while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans. Using that situation as an example, it was the believable threat and application of force that brought that to a close. I use the term “believable” because the threats to use force up to that point were not believable.

If you step back and look at multilateral interventions over the last 15 to 20 years, you don’t find a lot of successes that you can point out where the UN functioned as its mandate dictates. Individual efforts to engage have fared no better.

So we come back to a muscular, unilateral US policy of intervention where our national interests are either threatened or at risk. And by national interests, I include commerce and business interests. Let’s be clear on this: We have created a standard of living that demands global supplies to keep it efficiently running. Is it right to conduct business this way? I am not going to opine on the morality of it, but things are the way they are. Our interests dictate our policy and we behave accordingly.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I would also think that staying away from certain terminology would also help. The word “neocon” is used as both a pejorative and a conversation stopper. Conversely, “Leftie” or “Left” is used the same way. As far as the latter term goes, I will be the first to admit that I don’t use this term kindly, unlike the word “liberal”.

I don’t think diplomacy or negotiation are bad things. To the contrary, I fully subscribe to von Clausewitz’s notion that diplomacy and war fall at different points on the same continuum. Neville Chamberlain is indicative of “appeasement”, which is a very different thing from diplomacy. When he met with Hitler in Munich in 1938, it was to prevent war from breaking out in Europe. Hitler had been having his way and there was no reason to think this would be any different. My point is that both parties went into the meeting expecting very different things and, ironically, both came out of the meeting thinking that they had prevailed.

I don’t think engagement with Iran is a bad thing, but without any sort of military options to back up the discussions, nothing of substance will happen. The Iranians know this, hence their contemptuous dismissal of negotiations to this point.

The European track record is none too good, and I am not speaking historically, but rather over the last 15 – 20 years. The UN, NATO and the CSCE (the European security collective) all dithered while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans. Using that situation as an example, it was the believable threat and application of force that brought that to a close. I use the term “believable” because the threats to use force up to that point were not believable.

If you step back and look at multilateral interventions over the last 15 to 20 years, you don’t find a lot of successes that you can point out where the UN functioned as its mandate dictates. Individual efforts to engage have fared no better.

So we come back to a muscular, unilateral US policy of intervention where our national interests are either threatened or at risk. And by national interests, I include commerce and business interests. Let’s be clear on this: We have created a standard of living that demands global supplies to keep it efficiently running. Is it right to conduct business this way? I am not going to opine on the morality of it, but things are the way they are. Our interests dictate our policy and we behave accordingly.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I would also think that staying away from certain terminology would also help. The word “neocon” is used as both a pejorative and a conversation stopper. Conversely, “Leftie” or “Left” is used the same way. As far as the latter term goes, I will be the first to admit that I don’t use this term kindly, unlike the word “liberal”.

I don’t think diplomacy or negotiation are bad things. To the contrary, I fully subscribe to von Clausewitz’s notion that diplomacy and war fall at different points on the same continuum. Neville Chamberlain is indicative of “appeasement”, which is a very different thing from diplomacy. When he met with Hitler in Munich in 1938, it was to prevent war from breaking out in Europe. Hitler had been having his way and there was no reason to think this would be any different. My point is that both parties went into the meeting expecting very different things and, ironically, both came out of the meeting thinking that they had prevailed.

I don’t think engagement with Iran is a bad thing, but without any sort of military options to back up the discussions, nothing of substance will happen. The Iranians know this, hence their contemptuous dismissal of negotiations to this point.

The European track record is none too good, and I am not speaking historically, but rather over the last 15 – 20 years. The UN, NATO and the CSCE (the European security collective) all dithered while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans. Using that situation as an example, it was the believable threat and application of force that brought that to a close. I use the term “believable” because the threats to use force up to that point were not believable.

If you step back and look at multilateral interventions over the last 15 to 20 years, you don’t find a lot of successes that you can point out where the UN functioned as its mandate dictates. Individual efforts to engage have fared no better.

So we come back to a muscular, unilateral US policy of intervention where our national interests are either threatened or at risk. And by national interests, I include commerce and business interests. Let’s be clear on this: We have created a standard of living that demands global supplies to keep it efficiently running. Is it right to conduct business this way? I am not going to opine on the morality of it, but things are the way they are. Our interests dictate our policy and we behave accordingly.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I would also think that staying away from certain terminology would also help. The word “neocon” is used as both a pejorative and a conversation stopper. Conversely, “Leftie” or “Left” is used the same way. As far as the latter term goes, I will be the first to admit that I don’t use this term kindly, unlike the word “liberal”.

I don’t think diplomacy or negotiation are bad things. To the contrary, I fully subscribe to von Clausewitz’s notion that diplomacy and war fall at different points on the same continuum. Neville Chamberlain is indicative of “appeasement”, which is a very different thing from diplomacy. When he met with Hitler in Munich in 1938, it was to prevent war from breaking out in Europe. Hitler had been having his way and there was no reason to think this would be any different. My point is that both parties went into the meeting expecting very different things and, ironically, both came out of the meeting thinking that they had prevailed.

I don’t think engagement with Iran is a bad thing, but without any sort of military options to back up the discussions, nothing of substance will happen. The Iranians know this, hence their contemptuous dismissal of negotiations to this point.

The European track record is none too good, and I am not speaking historically, but rather over the last 15 – 20 years. The UN, NATO and the CSCE (the European security collective) all dithered while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans. Using that situation as an example, it was the believable threat and application of force that brought that to a close. I use the term “believable” because the threats to use force up to that point were not believable.

If you step back and look at multilateral interventions over the last 15 to 20 years, you don’t find a lot of successes that you can point out where the UN functioned as its mandate dictates. Individual efforts to engage have fared no better.

So we come back to a muscular, unilateral US policy of intervention where our national interests are either threatened or at risk. And by national interests, I include commerce and business interests. Let’s be clear on this: We have created a standard of living that demands global supplies to keep it efficiently running. Is it right to conduct business this way? I am not going to opine on the morality of it, but things are the way they are. Our interests dictate our policy and we behave accordingly.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I would also think that staying away from certain terminology would also help. The word “neocon” is used as both a pejorative and a conversation stopper. Conversely, “Leftie” or “Left” is used the same way. As far as the latter term goes, I will be the first to admit that I don’t use this term kindly, unlike the word “liberal”.

I don’t think diplomacy or negotiation are bad things. To the contrary, I fully subscribe to von Clausewitz’s notion that diplomacy and war fall at different points on the same continuum. Neville Chamberlain is indicative of “appeasement”, which is a very different thing from diplomacy. When he met with Hitler in Munich in 1938, it was to prevent war from breaking out in Europe. Hitler had been having his way and there was no reason to think this would be any different. My point is that both parties went into the meeting expecting very different things and, ironically, both came out of the meeting thinking that they had prevailed.

I don’t think engagement with Iran is a bad thing, but without any sort of military options to back up the discussions, nothing of substance will happen. The Iranians know this, hence their contemptuous dismissal of negotiations to this point.

The European track record is none too good, and I am not speaking historically, but rather over the last 15 – 20 years. The UN, NATO and the CSCE (the European security collective) all dithered while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans. Using that situation as an example, it was the believable threat and application of force that brought that to a close. I use the term “believable” because the threats to use force up to that point were not believable.

If you step back and look at multilateral interventions over the last 15 to 20 years, you don’t find a lot of successes that you can point out where the UN functioned as its mandate dictates. Individual efforts to engage have fared no better.

So we come back to a muscular, unilateral US policy of intervention where our national interests are either threatened or at risk. And by national interests, I include commerce and business interests. Let’s be clear on this: We have created a standard of living that demands global supplies to keep it efficiently running. Is it right to conduct business this way? I am not going to opine on the morality of it, but things are the way they are. Our interests dictate our policy and we behave accordingly.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: The best illustration I can think of regarding Israel’s getting screwed in negotiations is the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords.

Israel scrupulously followed the agreement, while the PLO failed to live up to nearly all of the agreed upon points. Most notoriously, Arafat did not deliver upon his promise to remove the central tenet of the PLO Charter, which is the denial of Israel’s right to exist.

The Accords called for the creation of a Palestinian state, and were hailed by the Clinton Administration as a means for finally stopping the violence and offering a real solution. In point of fact, Arafat had no intention of following through, as his actions clearly show, and he “rewarded” Israel’s diplomacy by launching a new intifada in 2000.

The Palestinians are nothing other than disposable pawns, and have been used by the Syrians, Jordanians and Saudis for years as just that. If the goal is truly a self sufficient Palestinian state, why do all of the neighboring Arab nations treat them as castoffs? Look at Jordan’s treatment of the Palestinians, including forced expulsion, and tell me how bad Israel is.

The Europeans have consistently made a hash of the Middle East, from the British Mandate for Palestine to the French in the Levant (Lebanon). Now we are trusting their diplomatic skills in Iran, a country committed to regional hegemony and utterly contemptuous of the Europeans.

[Author]

Posts