tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post2965201130713515164..comments2024-03-29T02:08:32.148-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: Fair Play is for SissiesDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-11727426477029368982012-02-14T09:04:00.273-08:002012-02-14T09:04:00.273-08:00You are crying again.. "Al-gorons"? That...You are crying again.. <br><br>"Al-gorons"? Thats used in the news? This is the sort of "news" that goes on over at FOX?<br><br>"consensus opinion"<br>If Gore uses it, it still sounds lame. Honestly, I dont care what Al Gore says or thinks about GW. But, nice try. I'll give you a gold star for effort.<br><br>"the reason I don't believe you"<br><br>LOL.. Marshall, I dont care. I really dont care. In the past you've had links, I've clicked on them and read the articles. Some of the articles have been in the AT. A few times, Ive even wondered over to that place without your links. I know, its amazing. <br><br>"bully's lackey minion"<br><br>Why argue with you? What is the point of it? You lack the ability to objectively analyse. I know my reasons for support. Why share with you? I find you to be lacking in smarts of any kind. <br><br>But, I do appreciate your loose grip on reality and you have a wonderful way with words. You have a special gift of being ironical. <br><br>"I'm crying again"<br><br>Spilled some milk?Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-41712108487427907012012-02-14T08:40:17.171-08:002012-02-14T08:40:17.171-08:00Are you so dense? "consensus opinion" i...Are you so dense? "consensus opinion" is what AlGore insists there is on the subject of AGW. That's not an opinion of mine, but a fact. <i>He</i> says there's a consensus on the matter, that it is a settled situation. Those who believe as he does are the "Gore-ons". The counter argument, which comes from the right-wing (another fact, not an opinion) is that there is no consensus at all, but only a faction of AGW proponents in the scientific world. <br><br>So what language would you have me use to describe reality if not the words being used by those in the news? And where in the above can you find an opinion of mine since I've only reiterated the same reality I did in the earlier posted comment? <br><br>As to your imagined visits to AT, the reason I don't believe you is because of your penchant for never providing anything at all that suggests you have read anything I've ever posted. You don't argue the points being made in the links I provide (or my own comments provoked by them), OR the links within them used to back up their points. You're just like a bully's lackey minion who just stands behind him saying "Yeah" to everything the bully says, never having a real opinion of thought of your own.<br><br>Boohoohoo. I'm crying again. Right.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-72870494444265823742012-02-13T16:20:10.882-08:002012-02-13T16:20:10.882-08:00"Never having read a single AT article, you w..."Never having read a single AT article, you wouldn't know that."<br><br>Soooo.. close. <br><br>I've actually wasted my time over there in the past. Sadly it is you that makes general statements and observations without reading. Marshall, whats the deal with projection on your part?<br><br>Just look at the language you use to describe your opinions... its comical. <br><br>consensus opinion<br>AlGore-ons<br>argument from the right<br><br>Seriously dude.. wtf?Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-70100787411679297752012-02-13T15:21:10.602-08:002012-02-13T15:21:10.602-08:00Well, if it makes you feel better to think that I&...Well, if it makes you feel better to think that I'm crying, you go right ahead and pleasure yourself to think so. Doesn't matter to me.<br><br>And of course it is simplistic, which is typical, to believe that I get my cues from AT or any other source of conservative opinion. But you're free to believe that lie as well. You believe so many as it is. As I've stated, I use the sources I do for the manner in which like-minded opinions are expressed and the links within their articles providing the facts upon which those opinions are based. Never having read a single AT article, you wouldn't know that.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-52775637462918245832012-02-13T10:17:18.306-08:002012-02-13T10:17:18.306-08:00"As for crying"It just never ends. Marsh..."As for crying"<br><br>It just never ends. Marshall keeps crying and crying and crying. Kind of sad really.<br><br>"To remind you once again, the argument from the right is"<br><br>For starters, its difficult to keep the "argument from the right" straight. First there is not gw, then there is, then they're not sure, then there is no gw, then there is but people can do anything about it.. jeeshh.. its just all over the place. When the right isnt in denial they are making excuses. Really, when they are in denial they are making excuses too. <br><br>Second, its not about "the argument from the right" or left. Its science. Marshall, if you're waiting to make your decision based on what American Thinker tells you, then you've already lost. Which to say is.. by your own comments.. you have lost a long time ago. Feel free to cry about it.Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-36489782524371410742012-02-11T16:34:10.155-08:002012-02-11T16:34:10.155-08:00I wouldn't be so smug, especially since YOU ha...I wouldn't be so smug, especially since YOU haven't been arguing with anyone who says global warming doesn't exist or that human activity doesn't play any role in it. To remind you once again, the argument from the right is that there is NO consensus opinion that global warming is MAINLY caused by human activity or is to an extent that warrants the type and level of gov't regulation suggested by the AlGore-ons like you. It is YOUR side of the issue that displays ignorance by discounting any opposing opinion on the subject merely for being an opposing opinion, totally dismissing the credibility and expertise of the many who question global warming positions. <br><br>As for crying, I know of no right-winger who cries because lefties are "mean", but only because of the destruction their goofy positions have and will continue to wreak on society and culture, which is provoked by your own troubles with reality.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-18537670785035925382012-02-08T11:18:03.219-08:002012-02-08T11:18:03.219-08:00Parklife - that is precisely why I don't "...Parklife - that is precisely why I don't "argue" with people, especially with those people who insist on arguing with reality.<br><br>The only way to deal with people who earnestly and sincerely believe, say, that global warming is either phony or not due to human activity, is to say they are wrong. Period. This isn't a subject open for debate or discussion, or for which "belief" has any meaning.<br><br>I know they cry because liberals are so mean to them. I'd pass them a tissue if I cared.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-548760555784655462012-02-08T10:41:33.703-08:002012-02-08T10:41:33.703-08:00"I simply can't account for those who lac...<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left" rel="nofollow">"I simply can't account for those who lack the intelligence"</a>Parklifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652660068761648224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-61248683301817955882012-02-08T07:42:51.938-08:002012-02-08T07:42:51.938-08:00Quite apart from everything else, what follows is ...Quite apart from everything else, what follows is precisely why interacting with Art is impossible:<br><br>"Geoffrey sought to support this notion with his poor examples, none of which were the parallel I sought in asking for whom we are harboring that is akin to bin Laden.<br>--snip--<br>"What's more, despite Geoffrey's claims otherwise, I've seen no example of anything that looks to be a history of American despotism or imperialism since our westward expansion in the 1800's."<br><br>Other than the obvious wealth of examples I gave that fit these precise criteria, I'm not sure what else to write. The many Cuban emigres who have engaged in a variety of terrorist acts in their homeland could get mentioned. The School For The Americas at Ft. Benning, GA, where countless Latin American despots learned the tricks of their trade is a fine one.<br><br>Just because <i>you</i> don't acknowledge them for what they are, Art, is meaningless. Like people who say they don't "believe" in evolution, or "global warming", the whole construction is nonsensical. Whether or not one "believes" or "thinks" one thing or another is neither here nor there. I answered your questions. I can't do anything more than what I've done.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-17654387331527150002012-02-07T16:19:27.187-08:002012-02-07T16:19:27.187-08:00"What WERE they booing, if not the suggestion...<i>"What WERE they booing, if not the suggestion that the golden rule has no place in foreign policy?"</i><br><br>I can't speak for the crowd at large, but as I also boo Paul's statement, I can say that it is because of what it implies. And that would be that we don't already, at the very least, <i>attempt</i> to deal in a "win-win" manner in our foreign affairs. That's insulting. One can legitimately argue the manner in which we make these attempts, the logic or practicality of a particular proposal. But the suggestion that our actions are based on selfishness and/or some imperialism is nonsense unworthy of one who seeks the presidency. On top of that, he more than implies that the hatred toward our country emanating from some corners of the globe is a result of actual evil on our part, namely 9/11, which shows an incredible ignorance of world events and history. <br><br>Geoffrey sought to support this notion with his poor examples, none of which were the parallel I sought in asking for whom we are harboring that is akin to bin Laden. <br><br>I simply can't account for those who lack the intelligence or honesty to see how something like the spread of communism or islamism can be a threat to our nation. Some didn't see Hitler as a threat until it was too late, but later understood what should have been easily seen warning signs. <br><br>What's more, despite Geoffrey's claims otherwise, I've seen no example of anything that looks to be a history of American despotism or imperialism since our westward expansion in the 1800's. <br><br>We have an obligation as the last superpower to be more than simply a bank giving out loans no one need repay. We ARE a part of an international community, even if the UN is a major joke. We DO have ties to nations that would not serve us to sever, but would indeed give <i>those</i> nations to view us poorly. <br><br>Ron Paul's suggestion was an insult and evidence he is not worthy to lead.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-80450010607601829402012-02-06T11:00:19.765-08:002012-02-06T11:00:19.765-08:00"At the same time, why be surprised?"Man..."At the same time, why be surprised?"<br><br>Many reasons not to be surprised. The conservative audiences have, as even Marshall points out, made it a habit of being an embarrassment. While Marshall thrashes about trying to justify their poor behavior, that voter that sits squarely in the middle gets to see the nature of those supporting the Republicans in the election. Silly conservatives complain and cry that the lefties have twisted the facts and are dishonest, the undecided independent is left with the video of the debate running loops in their head. As Dan points out, the replay is very clear.. Paul makes a statement about the golden rule and the audience boos. Simple. Easy. Marshall can whine and curse all he wants, but in the end its not about leftist or his precious opinion. Its not even about how the American Thinker or Rush Limbaugh justifies the crowd. <br><br>But, I wont hold my breath for Marshall to gain a perspective much the same way I dont hold my breath waiting for conservatives to gain a conscience.Parklifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652660068761648224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-51834781953363355632012-02-06T10:32:46.057-08:002012-02-06T10:32:46.057-08:00Praytell, Marshall, what exactly were they booing?...Praytell, Marshall, what exactly were they booing?<br><br>From where I read the story: Paul references the Golden Rule as an apt measure for foreign policy, then the crowd responded by booing.<br><br>What WERE they booing, if not the suggestion that the golden rule has no place in foreign policy?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-10091729607168410372012-02-06T09:33:14.051-08:002012-02-06T09:33:14.051-08:00As to the "booing", it is simply bullshi...As to the "booing", it is simply bullshit to suggest that they were booing at the concept of using Christian principles to conduct foreign affairs. Absolute bullshit, just as it was absolute bullshit when another crowd booed the question of the homosexual soldier in a previous debate, as if they were booing him rather than the implications of his question. It is typical of you lefties to spin such things in a way that is less accurate than favorable to your twisted ideologies. It is dishonest. Perhaps one of you guys has a link to an interview with one of the audience members that supports your spin. In the meantime, you are making a judgment you don't have the psychic ability to make.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-49166355389764264432012-02-06T09:28:57.452-08:002012-02-06T09:28:57.452-08:00Geoffrey,My only point about the "so-called&q...Geoffrey,<br><br>My only point about the "so-called" naming of the bombings was simply to point out that it didn't actually take place on Christmas. I don't know that it is accurate that Nixon named it that way or not. Perhaps you have a link. But it really doesn't matter. It was just an aside.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-56731539644911925002012-02-06T08:19:53.182-08:002012-02-06T08:19:53.182-08:00I agree that the whole "BOOing" business...I agree that the whole "BOOing" business was pretty nasty. At the same time, why be surprised? No one really wants to implement that Sermon On The Mount in our dealings with other countries. Even as big a loon as Paul understands this; he was baiting the audience as much as anything.<br><br>The larger discussion, I think, is right on topic. On the one hand, booing Jesus is bad. On the other hand, I don't see any possibility of acting toward other nation-states that way that would do anything but threaten our national integrity. Which only means that international relations are fallen, like the rest of creation.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-60881480012425075522012-02-06T04:09:44.027-08:002012-02-06T04:09:44.027-08:00Geoffrey, I don't know that I have anything to...Geoffrey, I don't know that I have anything to add. This post had one simple point: How classless and sadly ironic - and telling - it was that these good Christian folk in South Carolina actually booed the teachings of Christ. It was as if to confirm what it seems like to many of us: That there are a good number of religionists who REALLY dig Jesus, but have less use for his actual teachings. They like the NOTION of Jesus, but let's not get too serious about his teachings.<br><br>Now that is not to say that good Christians can't disagree on points like this. I recognize that there are Christians of good faith who don't believe that the State ought to hold to the same teachings that apply to us as individuals. I tend to disagree and think that Christian teachings are for all Christians, including those who might work in gov't, but I get that Christians can disagree on the point.<br><br>What is horrifying is the actual BOOING. Of someone daring to suggest we ought to implement Jesus' teachings in the real world.<br><br>Disagree if you must, but booing Jesus' teachings is just poor form and a sure sign of the times and an ugly portion of today's "conservatives."<br><br>I don't really have much to say beyond that, and most of the comments have not been on this topic. Yes, of course, you are right, Geoffrey: our nation has misbehaved and NOT behaved as we'd like others to treat us. That is just the historical record, clear to any except those who want to delude themselves.<br><br>Does that mean we are "as bad" as other nations? That's not the point. It means we have not treated others as we'd want to be treated and I happen to think Ron Paul is quite rational on this point. And, disagree or not, booing someone desiring to implement and advocate Jesus' teachings is just ugly.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-83145739824491726672012-02-05T19:42:09.974-08:002012-02-05T19:42:09.974-08:00Just a couple things before I give up on this thre...Just a couple things before I give up on this thread, mostly because I'm bored. It would be nice if Dan or someone else came along and actually said something intelligent, factual, and thoughtful.<br><br>Nothing that I wrote about anything the US has done in the past is controversial. Neither the facts themselves nor the reasons for these acts are under dispute by anyone.<br><br>The things I've written aren't about me. No one would be the least interested in the things I think or believe, and so I don't write things that way. You keep hinting or insinuating that my comments say things that are my own opinions, or reflect my own views. Neither is the case. I only wrote these comments rooted in what people who actually know what they're talking about say.<br><br>Disputing the naming of the Christmas bombings over North Vietnam in 1972 is, I must say, one of the funniest things I've ever read. I didn't make that name up. If you click <a href="http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-announces-start-of-christmas-bombing-of-north-vietnam" rel="nofollow">this link</a> you'll discover they were called that by the person who ordered them, President Richard Millhouse Nixon.<br><br>So, please. Stop while you're behind.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-79063955597821248802012-02-05T16:05:36.408-08:002012-02-05T16:05:36.408-08:00I wanted to touch back on your perception of the s...I wanted to touch back on your perception of the so-called "Christmas bombings" of North Vietnam, so called in order to incriminate the US gov't. No bombings actually took place on Christmas. <br><br>But the bombing runs were ordered by Nixon, who was pissed off that the North Vietnamese walked out of the peace talks. These runs were very surgical and marked a significant accomplishment in achieving the goal of hitting military targets and leaving avoiding civilian casualties. <a href="http://americong.com/the-true-story-of-christmas-bombing-n-vietnam-1972/#_ftnref37" rel="nofollow">This article</a>, with many citations from which it culled its info, shows the casualty rate was very low and much of it from Vietnamese ordinance missing their targets and falling back down upon themselves, as well as hits distorting the targeting of bombs in the process of being dropped. <br><br>In any case, this was a poor example of a criminal act as a war was in progress and there is nothing that compares to bin Laden's actions against civilians in the US. The only crime, in fact, is that the success of the bombing, in terms of the lowering of the enemy's will to go on fighting, was squandered. <br><br>As to Cyprus, I couldn't find anything that spoke of Kissinger doing much more than not acting or doing enough to prevent the Turkish invasion. There was a threat of communist influence in the area, we did have bases that would have been at risk had we been on the wrong side of the equation, and I've found nothing more than those hints and allegations regarding "allowing" arms to move to one side or the other. Again, our involvement wasn't to dominate, but to influence in a manner that would have maintained our interests in the area. <br><br>That, with the rest of your examples, does not show anything that equates to bin Laden or why Pakistan's harboring of him should have been respected. bin Laden's clear intention was to inflict as much death on American civilians as possible. Nothing Kissinger ever did could be said to have been intended to do anything like that, regardless of how many civilians may have suffered. (Though Parkie chooses to look at this as justifying civilian deaths by our actions, it is not, no matter how much he'd like it to be.)<br><br>Two or more nations each seeking to serve their own interests can indeed clash. I have not been denying this. I'm speaking about those nations whose interests include harming their neighbors. <br><br>It is incumbent upon every nation of character to oppose such activity for the sake of the world. And as the last superpower (while we still are), we can't sit back and let the despots of the world run freely. It would be as if one was to let a bully beat up another when one has the power to stop him. It's a risky business to be sure, but nothing worth having is not and that includes world peace and balance.<br><br>Finally, we do have friends in the world. The UK, Israel, and many others. They are our allies. We all won't agree on every issue, but we don't need to. Yet, to lose, say, Canada as an ally would not be good for our own interests, would it? To maintain our friendships and alliances require our involvement on some level. The isolationist views of a Ron Paul do not serve our interests.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-36115575521263077902012-02-05T15:26:42.137-08:002012-02-05T15:26:42.137-08:00Well, either they are opposed to working together ...Well, either they are opposed to working together or they are not. You seem to agree that they can be pushed to working together by actions we might take. How does this not confirm the sentiment already made that they can set aside their differences in order to combat us or Israel?<br><br>And for what purpose would it be to work toward limiting America's influence and power? How have we used that power to force anyone to do anything, other than to stop acting badly? It would seem clear to most that a nation that continues to spew harsh rhetoric against our nation and our allies that stopping the spread of our influence and power is necessary in order to more easily exert theirs. <br><br>In our case, we have moved against the spread of Communism in the past, but not to force our will, but to allow for free choice to accept our willingness to do business and be mutually beneficial neighbors. This seems to be at the heart of much of your concerns, and Ron Paul's, that we have interfered with other countries. Though it can be reasonably debated that the means in which our actions were the best, I don't think you can point to any "proof" that our intentions were in any way a form of domination on our part. Remember, we totally defeated Germany and Japan and we do not control those nations today. We did not take over the oil reserves of Iraq and there's little doubt that we very well could have. <br><br>To exert influence is not a sinful goal. We look to do that as Christians all the time in a variety of ways. No force takes place and I don't see that we, as a nation, have worked to force anything, except as I have said, an end to despotic activity.<br><br>This is what I meant by moral relativism in your comments. To simply say that each nation concerns itself with its own self interests is one thing. To pretend that each set of interests is equally benign is another. There is little reason to believe that Canada, for example, would be a cause for concern because what constitutes their self interest is not overtly threatening. This cannot be said for Iran.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-49301334084071405712012-02-05T08:07:26.592-08:002012-02-05T08:07:26.592-08:00After three seconds of digging, I found this prett...After three seconds of digging, I found <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/cfr-and-neocons-work-together-to-hype-al-qaeda-iran-link.html" rel="nofollow">this pretty thorough take-down</a> of the Jones article in <i>FA</i>.<br><br>As <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/nuclear-weapons/" rel="nofollow">this post</a> at Think Progress makes plain, the alleged links - and that is all they seem to be; Iran holds some senior al Qaeda officials under house arrest, and may or may not be working with them at some level - should prompt American caution.<br><br>From the article: "Finally, the United States should think twice about actions that would push Iran and al Qaeda closer together — especially a preemptive attack on the country’s nuclear program. Thus far, Iran and al Qaeda have mutually limited their relationship. It would be a travesty to push the two closer together at the very moment that central al Qaeda in Pakistan has been severely weakened."<br><br>Sound advice, granting the premise is true.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-75629628197199729502012-02-05T05:58:29.684-08:002012-02-05T05:58:29.684-08:00In re the Foreign Affairs article, I find it inter...In re the Foreign Affairs article, I find it interesting, not least because it demonstrates, in the second paragraph, the principle of which I speak: "Perhaps more disturbing, Iran appears willing to expand its limited relationship with al Qaeda. Just as with its other surrogate, Hezbollah, the country could turn to al Qaeda to mount a retaliation to any U.S. or Israeli attack. To be sure, the organization is no Iranian puppet. And the two have sometimes been antagonistic, as illustrated by al Qaeda in Iraq's recent attacks against Shias. <i>But both share a hatred of the United States.</i>" Iran holds some al Qaeda leaders. It offered assistance in the run up to the attack on Afghanistan because the Taliban on their eastern border posed a threat; having a militant Sunni organization stirring up the kind of trouble that led to 9/11 was not something Iran needed.<br><br>What do they share, at least according to the author of this article? A "hatred" of the US. In other words, they can set aside their differences to become allies working for the goal of limiting US influence and power.<br><br>That is precisely what I'm talking about.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-47036161923639857452012-02-05T05:24:19.978-08:002012-02-05T05:24:19.978-08:00"First of all, Geoffrey, I have to say that y..."First of all, Geoffrey, I have to say that you are now engaging in moral relativism by your reference to every nation acting in its own self-interest."<br><br>Relativism? Seriously? Every country acts in its relations to other country out of its self-interest. This is the principle that has guided international relations in the west for almost five hundred years. The great statesmen, from Cardinal Richelieu through Metternich and Bismark to Theodore Roosevelt, Churchill, DeGaulle - this is the core of real politique. It isn't something I invented, or I think is good or bad or anything else. It isn't "relativism" to say that countries act this way. It is a description of what actually happens, Art.<br><br>"That is to say, this obvious condition is not the issue at all, but whether or not all interests are equally benevolent or even benign. I don't believe that we or most of our true allies, when acting in their own self-interest, intentionally seek some kind of domination or influence that would be harmful to other nations." The the interests of nations clash is obvious; whether or not they are "benign" or not is immaterial. As for the rest, "true allies" is meaningless. Disraeli said that no nation has permanent allies, only permanent interests. Few better maxims should be kept in mind. As for whether or not you "believe" the United States has sought to dominate other countries, there is actual, factual evidence - a very long history of it, in fact - that says otherwise. Not anti-American propaganda. Not relativism. Not one person's interpretation of facts as opposed to another's.<br><br>Actual facts. All sorts of them. Events, the decision to bring those events about, the thinking process behind the decision-making, arguments, rhetoric, letters, memos, on and on. The historical record is overflowing with the United States intentionally seeking to dominate other countries. Happens all the time. Whether you choose to believe this to be the case doesn't change this.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-79016234121724601462012-02-05T03:29:08.443-08:002012-02-05T03:29:08.443-08:00Now for Geoffrey's comments, which I will say ...Now for Geoffrey's comments, which I will say constitute a discussion, a conversation, something about which one person lacks the slightest clue.<br><br>First of all, Geoffrey, I have to say that you are now engaging in moral relativism by your reference to every nation acting in its own self-interest. That is to say, this obvious condition is not the issue at all, but whether or not all interests are equally benevolent or even benign. I don't believe that we or most of our true allies, when acting in their own self-interest, intentionally seek some kind of domination or influence that would be harmful to other nations. Our self-interest is primarily defensive, to insure we are not endangered on any level, and or attempts to improve our situation, often <i>with</i> our neighbors for mutual benefit if possible. <br><br>Iran, on the other hand, is headed by those who look forward to, and hope to help bring about, the coming of the 12th Imam, for the benefit of Islamic world domination. This isn't a secret conspiracy theory. Ahmadinajad has stated this intention publicly. What's more, as <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137061/seth-g-jones/al-qaeda-in-iran" rel="nofollow">this article indicates</a> (and it is hardly a lone voice on such things), there is no great divide between Sunni and Shiite that would not be put aside for the cause of eradicating Israel and/or America. <br><br>What seems so incredible to me is this seeming amnesia regarding past events and how they led to today's. It is apparent in Ron Paul's belief about why we're hated by such countries. But the Islamic world has been at this since their inception. You mentioned Jefferson and the Barbary pirates. They were capturing and scuttling American merchant ships, holding the crews for ransom. We didn't even have a real Navy until then and Jefferson developed one in order to kick some ass and put a stop to the Muslim actions, who, like all gangsters, run rampant when there is no law to stop them. Worse, if you do some research into the history, you will find the Muslim leader of that time speaking in precisely the language spoken by bin Laden and other modern day terrorists. <br><br>Iran is free to have their own self-interests and to work on behalf of them. But when those threaten us or our allies, their self-interests become more than about themselves. <br><br>more later...Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-78329935550688298732012-02-05T03:08:25.095-08:002012-02-05T03:08:25.095-08:00First, I'll address the silly stuff."I ta...First, I'll address the silly stuff.<br><br><i>"I take it you have no problem with these lies? "If that chorus is comprised of people who support the free engagement in sinful sexual behavior"?"</i><br><br>This puts Dan in a tricky spot. He is a fallible human being and cannot say with certainty what is or isn't sinful sexual behavior, but only render his <i>hunch</i> based on his fallible study of Scripture. So the first task is to determine if the acts are or are not sinful, then determine if another person Dan considers fallible is free to believe they are sinful, and if so, try to explain how they can be lies. As I understand it, because Dan truly and sincerely believes what he does, to the extent that his fallibility allows him certainty, he cannot be accused of lying, even if his beliefs are truly false. Thus, it would only logically follow that I also cannot be a liar or accused of lying if my beliefs are also sincerely held. What a conundrum!<br><br><i>"Marshall, you have an enormous blind spot in your life."</i><br><br>One that thus far has not been pointed out, without which this statement has no meaning whatsoever. <br><br><i>"Perhaps this allows you to justify your positions.. "</i><br><br>No. Truth and facts allow me justify my positions. In fact, they <i>compel</i> me to hold those positions as to otherwise would make me a liar and reprobate.<br><br><i>"I don’t know why you hate LGBT but you hardly denied my statement."</i><br><br>You mean you've missed the other billion times I've insisted I don't hate anyone? Once more wouldn't matter then, would it? Especially to someone who, as if it has become an obsessive hobby, continues to make such statements without a bit of proof. Visiting my blog, reading my comments, none of it qualifies unless you can point out where the hatred lies. No one else will be able to see it, unless their own hatred for opposing opinions, those based on Scriptural truth and fact, results in their seeing it everywhere opposition exists. <br><br><i>"It must be tough being Marshall. First you make derogatory comments then people make fun of you."</i><br><br>Actually, you should be so lucky. It's not even tough when supporters of sinful lifestyles accuse me of making derogatory comments OR make fun of me. It's not even tough when I point out simple facts like <i>“I get mockery only from the likes of you and Alan.”</i> and you pretend I'm whining or being defensive. Talk about comedy gold!<br><br><i>"The likes of me? Sooo.. you’re saying you really DO like me!"</i><br><br>Nope. Didn't say or suggest that at all.<br><br><i>"Seriously. Marshall, and I hope you’re paying attention to this..."</i><br><br>Of course I am. That's where the laughs are. <br><br><i>"...you do not make it very easy to converse with you."</i><br><br>How would you know? You've never tried. Even Geoffrey has been trying. Dan does all the time. Like Alan, you do not. Unlike Alan, I doubt you are capable as you've never stuck your neck out. That's all I've ever hoped for from <i>such</i> as you. <br><br><i>"There is zero self refection in your comments."</i><br><br>???? Maybe you could copy and paste an example of how this looks in any of YOUR comments.<br><br><i>"You have, yet again, responded by thrashing about making excuses for death and murder."</i><br><br>Which of my comments does this? I have not even thought about <i>attempting</i> such a thing. From what I can see, we've been talking about Ron Paul's notion of foreign affairs, Geoffrey's attempt to compare the bin Laden situation with Kissinger and personal attacks. If I find there's a reason to "make excuses" for death and murder, I'll point it out for you so you'll know what it looks like.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-51561724564182177192012-02-04T08:02:54.568-08:002012-02-04T08:02:54.568-08:00Cont'd . . ."As to Iran, again, we have a...Cont'd . . .<br><br>"As to Iran, again, we have a nation that has a history of bad behavior, their fingerprints showing up in many areas where they seemingly have no direct involvement, from AQI IEDs to assorted other incidents of their complicity or help against our forces or our allies. And the difference with dealing with them as opposed to dealing with a country like China, is that China does not continually threaten the existence of other nations. China does not seem to want to enter into a global nuclear party in order to bring about some religious myth."<br><br>I don't know what you're talking about in that last sentence, to be honest.<br><br>As to Iran's involvement in Iraq, obviously they have an interest in what goes on in a country directly to their west, with which they fought a very long, very bloody, inconclusive war through much of the 1980's, and which was invaded by the major world power, bringing more chaos and instability to their doorstep.<br><br>Iran is a Shi'a nation. So is Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq is a Sunni organization (as is Al Qaeda). Iran would no more be involved with them than they would with Jewish militants on the West Bank. So, um, false.<br><br>As to the rest, is it surprising that Iran, acting out of its self-interest, supports groups and organizations in other countries that would further those interests? The US does this all the time! This doesn't make them bad, or evil, or the biggest threat since the Soviet Union, or anything else. It makes them . . . a country.<br><br>In general, I view all countries, whether long-standing allies like Canada or Great Britain, or recent or current rivals, such as Iraq, Iran, China, or whomever, as neither "friends" nor "enemies". For example, I love Great Britain. I find it to be a marvelous country, with a wonderful history. That doesn't mean I believe, for one moment, the US and Great Britain are buddies. If a time came the US threatened a vital interest of the British, I have little doubt it might well come to blows.<br><br>The case with Israel is much the same. More Americans have been killed by the Israeli military than the Iranian military, Art. The Israelis are cold, realistic, and brutal in dealings with every country. They have compromised American security repeatedly over the years, exploiting the sentimentality of parts of the American population to further their own ends. There is nothing inherently wrong with this; the US does the same kind of thing, albeit not, for some odd reason, with the Israelis (at least that we know of).<br><br>In short, Art, sure the Iranians do stuff against US interests. We do stuff against theirs. The same is true with pretty much most of the 200-odd countries in the world. Neither surprising nor even all that interesting. The question, it seems to me, is whether it might not be in our interests, over a number of years, to deal with them, always recognizing we won't be joining them in a chorus of Kum-Ba-Yah any time soon. I see no reason why not.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.com