Zeno diplomacy
No, that’s not a typo above. I didn’t mean “Zero diplomacy,” I meant “Zeno diplomacy.”
What’s Zeno diplomacy? It’s described in this article by Robert Tracinski, a writer with whom I wasn’t previously familiar but who appears to be an Ayn Rand proponent (see this).
The term apparently originated with Robert Kagan, who mentions it in his recent article appearing in the Washington Post. It’s a reference to Zeno’s paradox; remember, the one that was illustrated in your textbooks by the little drawings of the turtle and Achilles, advancing the seemingly logical but obviously incorrect argument that says the turtle will win the race against the warrior?
Here’s another way to state the argument:
Suppose I wish to cross the room. First, of course, I must cover half the distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then I must cover half the remaining distance . . . and so on forever. The consequence is that I can never get to the other side of the room.
We don’t need to worry right now about the flaw in Zeno’s argument (although if you follow the link you’ll find a good explanation); what we’re dealing with today is a flaw in the argument of those who argue for diplomacy, and then some diplomacy, and then some more diplomacy, when dealing with those whose aim is not to come to a peaceful resolution, but to stall for time. Because stalling for time gives the enemy the means to choose to start a conflict at a time more favorable to him, rather than to us. And it’s Tracinski’s assertion that stalling for time with Iran (otherwise known as “diplomacy”) has only given Iran the ability to strike in a way and time of its own choosing, as we see now in the current Mideast crisis.
Those who promote nearly endless diplomacy as a solution to situations in which conflict threatens to erupt often don’t seem to see that diplomacy has its downside. After all, what could be bad about postponing a war by talking? Isn’t that always good?
It would be good, I suppose, if the negotiations led to an actual resolution or defusing of the situation, if the passage of time led to the situation somehow becoming better and not worse. And, of course, without a functioning crystal ball, none of us can foretell the future; we can only do our best to predict it based on the best evidence we have in the present. That process, of course, is deeply flawed, but it’s all we have.
One of my favorite quotations of all time is that of the New England abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who famously said:
With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
When I first heard the quote I misunderstood it for a moment, thinking Garrison was saying that tyrants always win arguments. No, what he meant by the phrase “they will certainly be lost” is “they will certainly be wasted.”
So the key to winning arguments–or to get people to do what you want them to–is to tailor the approach to the problem and to the character of the person or people with whom one is dealing. Tyrants are tyrannical, and neither reason nor pleading will suffice to convince them.
The problem, of course, is in deciding who is that sort of a tyrant, and who is not. It’s a bit like end of the first sentence of Niebuhr’s well-known serenity prayer:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.
The wisdom to know the difference–yes, indeed! To distinguish when diplomacy has a chance of working from the times when it doesn’t is not an easy task, but certainly not an impossible one. And I think it’s safe to say that in North Korea and in Iran we are dealing with the sort of tyrants on whom words will certainly be lost.
That’s not to say that some tyrants can’t be appealed to by coercion or even persuasion that focuses on their own self-interest. That may be true of Iran. But be careful. Look what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administration. Giving negotiated concessions to a tyrant for humanitarian reasons, ones that seem to be good for the people of the country at the time, can ultimately backfire and end up with the tyrant having bought time to become more aggressive.
It’s an interesting balancing act. Tyrants desire power above all, and to get that power they need a country. However, that need for power may be the only reason they care about the welfare of their people at all–if the people disappear, the country disappears, and where would that leave the tyrant? But tyrants ordinarily consider large numbers of their people expendable, as long as enough people remain to maintain the tyrant’s country and his power. So the welfare of their people as a whole is not necessarily so much of a bargaining chip.
And be careful even of the logical assumption that tyrants care about the existence of their country at all. Some tyrants are more or less mad–or they become so over time–and when their fortunes are on the wane they want to bring the entire country down with them, in a sort of murder-suicide impulse (Hitler, for example, wanted Germany and the Germans to perish with him when he finally realized that all was lost).
And that brings us to the Iranian mullahs. They’ve put a somewhat new twist on things, because they are the first tyrannical heads of a country (in modern times, at least) who appear far less concerned with the things of this world than with their vision of the world to come. Therefore all bets are off; their priorities may indeed be focused on the afterlife rather than on protecting their people in this one. This is what makes them especially bad candidates for negotiation, and especially good ones for the problems inherent in Zeno diplomacy.
[By the way, Pajamas Media has some very thorough roundups of breaking news and reactions in the current crisis.]
[ADDENDUM: In another case of psychoblogger unity, Dr. Sanity spotlights the same Tracinski article, although she discusses other aspects of it.]
I only want to say that I have nothing to do with it… 😉
nice post as usual neo!
uhn… first?
It is the method of the sans fin style of diplomacy, question is ‘why’? I wish there were more video documentaries that illustrated this in the premise of how flawed logic works in politics and the victims it again endlessly bears. I do a lot of video work — if I could ever work out a good script I would do it myself — the trouble is finding a good team to work with.
Wonderfully said, Neo.
” I think it’s safe to say that in North Korea and in Iran we are dealing with the sort of tyrants on whom words will certainly be lost”
I think it’s also safe to say that these respective countries might be run by tyrants, but, they do not, under any rational circumstances, constitute a grave ‘threat’ to the Western world, as percieved by many in the political establishment in Washington and London.
It seems as though your buying government propaganda hook, line and sinker. The idea that those two countries pose some kind of threat to us in the West is risible to say the least.
Come now, do you honestly think third world countries like Iran, or North Korea can seriously trouble the mighty West? Only someone with a profound sense of insecurity about themselves, and a fearful, and negative preception of the future could possibly regard even both those countries put together, as some sort of legitimate threat.
Alternatively, since you seem to object to international diplomacy, do you then think we should just blast those countries off the face of the Earth? End of ‘crisis’, no?
Best wishes.
Courtney
I think it’s also safe to say that these respective countries might be run by tyrants, but, they do not, under any rational circumstances, constitute a grave ‘threat’ to the Western world, as percieved by many in the political establishment in Washington and London.
No ‘might’ about it. No grave threat? Their Hezbullah, Hamas, etc. proxies are flower children – I forgot.
It seems as though your buying government propaganda hook, line and sinker. The idea that those two countries pose some kind of threat to us in the West is risible to say the least.
Islamic immigrants are currently re-populating Europe – at what time will critical mass be reached – and Middle East turmoil coped on the continent and the isles?
Come now, do you honestly think third world countries like Iran, or North Korea can seriously trouble the mighty West? Only someone with a profound sense of insecurity about themselves, and a fearful, and negative preception of the future could possibly regard even both those countries put together, as some sort of legitimate threat.
Yeaaa 9/11 was SFX – let’s go get some eats and beer.
Alternatively, since you seem to object to international diplomacy, do you then think we should just blast those countries off the face of the Earth? End of ‘crisis’, no?
We might be forced to do just that – to bad Russia, China, and France can’t seem to reframe from their vetoes and stand up to international terror. Walking on glass is gonna suck – it’s gonna be hot too – maybe Mars and Earth do, err, will look a lot alike, soon. I for one am gonna hate it.
Here’s a solution to ending the crisis in Israel/Lebanon: Allow Iran and Syria the delight and pleasure, hell, the International Right [or commandment of Allah] to fire 100 missiles into Israel every year.
To be fair, to be fair … let’s have one caveat – they must only fire the missile in blindly – no targeting.
The collective Ahmadinejad/Assad sigh, I can hear it now, “Those tricky Jews!!!!”
Diplomacy was first “widely used” by the Roman Generals and Ceasars.
If it provided the means to achieving the ends, e.g. “surrender or die, don’t misunderstand our intent.” It was a less costly way of waging conquest and maintaining an empire.
If not, they sent in the legions which was o.K. with them.
Occaisionally the Romans crucified thousands of people along the roads to back up their threats, er diplomacy.
Otherwise it’s just all talk.
Something the “Club of Cheap Thugs & Dictators” has found out, you know, the U.N.
“Only someone with a profound sense of insecurity about themselves, and a fearful, and negative preception of the future could possibly regard even both those countries put together, as some sort of legitimate threat.”
“What, me worry?” Alfred E. Newman
“I am strong, I am invincible. I am Woman.” Helen Reddy
“See, nothing has happened here since 9/11. Therefore, there was no threat – and, by the way, Bush is Hitler.” Universal FLiberal Anti-Serenity Mantra of Denial et Fear cum Displacement.
“That’s my la la la la la la la la la la la Peace song. People, tell me why can’t we get along.” Al Wilson
la la la la la la la la no threat la la la la la la I am invincible la la la la la you are evil la la la la and insecure la la la so far so good – now passing 5th floor la la What me worry? la Kaboom. People, tell me why can’t we get along?
“See, it’s all your fault.” Zarqawi and Madelaine Albright – “together at last”?
Those who advocate inaction and talking as a remedy to tyranny and terrorism need to remember this principle by liberal thinker John Stuart Mill:
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”
nyomythus wrote: “Yeaaa 9/11 was SFX – let’s go get some eats and beer.”
No, 9/11 wasn’t SFX, obviously — it was a senseless act of terror that should be condemned by every reasonable person.
However, the US’s response to 9/11 was completely disproportionate. In response, the US has now attacked TWO countries (Afghanistan and Iraq). The invasion of Afghanistan was particularly terrible, because before invasion the US ordered the cutoff of food aid that was reaching Afghanistan through Pakistan. Now this food aid was reaching the poor Afghan people who were themselves the victims of the Taliban. So please tell me, what is the sense in punishing by starvation the same people who were being oppressed by the Taliban, in order to get back at the Taliban? How many innocent Afghans (who were themselves victims of the Taliban) died as a result?
India just had its major city (Mumbai/Bombay) bombed by terrorists suspected of being trained in Pakistan. Should India have invaded Pakistan immediately in retaliation? India did not do so — it reacted in a much more calm and mature way compared to the way the US did on September 11.
Courtney wrote: “Alternatively, since you seem to object to international diplomacy, do you then think we should just blast those countries off the face of the Earth? End of ‘crisis’, no?”
Some of the belligerent neocons probably want to do this, because they have no concern for civilian lives lost. (In this, they are just as bad as the terrorists, who also don’t have any concern for civilian life).
Nate–
I have no idea why you’re making excuses for the Taliban. Reasonable people can disagree on Iraq, but there’s no reason for this piece of stupidity just proffered, only rationalization.
I’m glad people like you aren’t in power here, because they would have just condemned the 9/11 attacks with nice sounding words and offered peace talks for the possibility of arranging a tentative timetable to coming to the table to discuss what we did to offend them in a nuanced and sensitive manner that is completely respectful of advanced cultural practices, like the stoning of women. whew!
Thanks to Bush, fundie Muslims haven’t been hijacking Indian planes to Kandahar lately, and every Indian I’ve spoken to is grateful for it.
“India did not do so — it reacted in a much more calm and mature way compared to the way the US did on September 11.”
That’s a distressingly simplistic analysis – and mostly comparing apples and oranges, to boot. In Afghanistan we had a leadership openly harboring the perpetrators of the act who refused to turn over those perpetrators (both for previous events and September 11). That’s not the case in Pakistan. Notice, even though the majority of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, we did not attack Saudi Arabia nor even contemplate doing so. That would be a much more apt comparison to the Indian situation. Hmmm, it could even be an indication of the “maturity” you’re so enamored of.
The question to be asked in any such situation is “Was there a state sponsor, or not?” In the Taliban-9/11 situation there was clearly an unrepentant state sponsor. That’s what determined the action that followed. It’s as simple as that. As far as I can tell, Musharraf isn’t out there praising the perpetrators and awarding them medals.
You also have to keep in mind that Indian is in a nuclear standoff with Pakistan so the issues involved are much more complex than those between the US and Afghanistan. Do you honestly think that if Pakistan didn’t have nuclear weapons and a huge army that India would have reacted in exactly the same way? If you do I think you’re naive.
To take another example in history, do you think it was “mature” for the US and NATO to abandon the Hungarians when they rose up against Soviet occupation in 1956? We hung them out to dry and they died by the thousands. Why? Certainly not because abandoning them was the right thing to do. Rather it was because the Soviets were a nuclear power, pure and simple. In my mind one shouldn’t confuse practicality with maturity.
I find myself warming to nate. Got a weblog nate? I like the cut of your jib young man/woman.
I find myself warming to nate. Got a weblog nate? I like the cut of your jib young man/woman.
Courtney wrote: “Alternatively, since you seem to object to international diplomacy, do you then think we should just blast those countries off the face of the Earth? End of ‘crisis’, no?”
Actually I think just toppling their despots would be enough, no need to be too severe. Some lives will be lost and some real estate will be damaged, that’s usually what happens during war. The despots and their supporters should have thought of that before waging war.
I don’t think this current Israeli/Palestinian will be the conflict that brings open war with Iran and Syria because I don’t think Israel will attack Iran and Syria directly at this time but will simply try to occupy the territories such as Southern Lebanon and Gaza from which Hamas and Hezbollah mount their attacks.
Eventually of course war with Iran and perhaps Syria is inevitable. Their leaders are apparently unaware of how dangerous their actions are to themselves. They are playing with fire and will in due time be burned.
Nate:
So, under what conditions would you support the removal of a tyrant by external military action? I’m curious.
War with Iran before they get nukes?
Or after?
See my post which defines failure:
A solution that does not stop the rockets from going over the border, is not a solution.
I think the US and India should ally to become a Democracy-based World Cop.
This is an aside but it’s something that’s been striking me with a severe case of the giggles everytime I think about how oblivious the North Koreans are — to the international language of English [for starters].
Their missiles are called: NO-DONG
I can hear Jong now, “Ohhhh you so spicy! You big damn u American! Weeee get chew soon! Ohhhhh!”
So, [Nate] under what conditions would you support the removal of a tyrant by external military action? I’m curious. JonBuck | 07.14.06 – 7:44 pm | #
Now … Impeach Bush and we’ll all roast marshmellows.
Jonbuck wrote: “So, under what conditions would you support the removal of a tyrant by external military action? I’m curious.”
Never through external military action directly undertaken by a foreign power. However, I would be in favor of supplying weapons to those in that country who are fighting the tyrant. The act of freeing themselves will have to be carried out by the people of that country themselves, not by someone else acting on their behalf.
So, in my view, supporting any democratic forces in Afghanistan who were (or were willing to) fighting the Taliban militarily, should have been supported with arms, training, etc.
Neo,
I’m not sure one should discuss the diplomacy-to-the-bitter-end advocates in terms of their logic. Some of these people remind me of women who are attracted to serial rapist/murderers in prison. They feed their own ego by believing that only they can get through to a person society has given up on. They are people whose need to be special dominates normal self preservation instincts.
Nate:
However, the US’s response to 9/11 was completely disproportionate.
I love all this talk about “disproportionate” responses.
What should we have done? Fly airliners into buildings in Afghanistan? Should Israel have kidnapped a couple of Hezbollah guys?
Presumably the burning of Atlanta was a “disproportionate” response to Fort Sumter. Likewise Hiroshima was a “disproportionate” response to Pearl Harbor.
But they sure settled things, didn’t they?
Popcorn time: Nate, what about the people of the U.S. afflicted with “hunger” as we are assured by all sensitives we are – and that’s all of us, as far as I can tell. Don’t you “care” about us in the U.S.? Oh well, I guess you’ll be taught how to make Care Packages next year in school. Sorry I missed your recent graduation from Kindergarten. Congrats.
What about the starving people in North Korea. Don’t you care? What do you recommend? Condemnation? Yeah, that’ll get them fed. How about freedom? What about survival?
Btw, little Nate, the Afgan operation was a U.N. mission. Right? The subsequent U.S. Iraq invasion was condoned by the U.N. by virtue of its inaction – in not even trying to condemn the U.S.. And it was condoned in the very same way Clinton’s massive strike against Iraq in 1998 was condoned then by the U.N..
In 1998 the U.S. had not been attacked by anyone in Iraq, the U.S. did not even go to the U.N. for support or “permisssion” to attack Iraq, the U.N. did not condemn the U.S. subsequently, and the U.N. did nothing further to respond to Iraq’s infringement: Iraq’s failure to comply with inspections specifically concerning WMD’s. Sound familiar?
There were no further U.N. Iraq inspections between 1998 and 2002, until the U.S. gave the U.N.’s inspection vehicle one last chance by forcing an inspection under the threat of a U.S. invasion. Surprise, surprise, Iraq chose to not comply again. What did you conclude? That Iraq had nothing to hide? You do “care” about civilians, don’t you?
Hence the Mother of All Inspections commenced, which the U.N. did not oppose, and again offered no alternative to this Inspection as the “serious consequences” of res. 1441. It still hasn’t defined these consequences as anything other than we did in 1998 and the invasion commencing in 2003.
Everything has been legal, little Nate, condoned by the U.N., and net positive to our survival and that of the Afganis and Iraqis, to say nothing of the rest of the World. Mere “senseless acts of terror” by merely senseless Islamofascists who merely senselessly want to kill or enslave all “infidels” [all of us] are being effectively combated by the only plan yet offered, the Bush Doctrine. Or in all your caring, have you heard of other plans, apart from Kerry’s “sensitive” war, and FLiberal surrender?
But you are instead obsessed with Afgani “starvation” as the lone object of your “care”. Hey, baby, if the Afganis are “starving”, why is the U.N. not feeding them?
As Maxine Brown said: “I don’t know, Baby, maybe it’s all in your mind.”
But I am getting hungry, Nate. I sure hope “summer meals in the park” is still open. Otherwise I’ll try to hold out until your next school year in 1st grade when you learn how to make the Care Packages. You do care about civilians, including their hunger and starvation, don’t you?
And since you “care”, can’t you change your name? My 9/11 18 y.o. daughter’s boyfri
boyfriend is a Marine in Iraq, defending your right to “care”. His name is Nate.
India just had its major city (Mumbai/Bombay) bombed by terrorists suspected of being trained in Pakistan. Should India have invaded Pakistan immediately in retaliation? India did not do so — it reacted in a much more calm and mature way compared to the way the US did on September 11.
You don’t read the news very often, do you? Would you call the 2002 slaughter of more than 700 Muslims in Gujarat ‘mature’?
“Nearly 700 Muslims have been slaughtered and burnt, their homes and business looted, while police deployed to stop the rioting watched without doing anything in India in the last few weeks. TV news cameras, especially those of the BBC have taped the complicity of the Gujarat police in the mayhem on Muslims. The riot of Gujarat is justice Indian style. It is revenge for the murder and burning of 58 Hindus in a neighboring state.”
India doesn’t respond to terrorist attacks with military action because, as far as I know, their military strength is about the same as Pakistan’s. That doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t be happy to see us take some sort of action against Pakistan – at the very least, they’d be happy if we’d stop calling Pakistan a trusted ally.
That’s not the case in Pakistan. Notice, even though the majority of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, we did not attack Saudi Arabia nor even contemplate doing so.
The Saudis and our allies in the UAE paid for the 7/11 attacks on the commuter trains in Bombay. Saudis have also sponsored or been involved in the majority of terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11. If we had attacked them after 9/11, the world might be a better place.
But we can congratulate ourselves for being “mature.”
J. Peden:
I wish your daughter’s boyfriend Nate well, and hope he comes home safely. Semper Fi.
By the way, I’ve always wondered about this: Do Marines mind if civilians say things like “Semper Fi”, or is that something that Marines say to each other?
J. Peden wrote: “What about the starving people in North Korea. Don’t you care? What do you recommend? Condemnation? Yeah, that’ll get them fed. How about freedom? What about survival?”
I recommend that when the North Korean people rise up and overthrow the dictatorship, we support them — and not withdraw our support as happened when Iraqis tried to overthrow Saddam after the first Gulf War.
As for your comments about the UN: it’s well known that the US tries to bully the UN into submission. Sometimes it succeeds, at other times not. (And often the UN refuses to be bullied, the US applies the veto power, as it just did yesterday, after the Security Council adopted a resolution condemning Israel for using excessive force.)
As for your daughter’s boyfriend, I’m sure he’s an outstanding and patriotic young man. I wish that the children of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al had signed up for the army to go fight in this war, but of course none of them have. Ever wonder why?
As for your comments about the UN: it’s well known that the US tries to bully the UN into submission. Sometimes it succeeds, at other times not.
So when we don’t go through the UN, we’re being unilateral cowboys with no international legitmacy. And when we do use the UN we’re bullying them into doing what we want.
You can’t have it both ways, Nate.
JonBuck wrote:
“So when we don’t go through the UN, we’re being unilateral cowboys with no international legitmacy. And when we do use the UN we’re bullying them into doing what we want.”
That pretty much describes it. The US doesn’t seem to be able to take “no” for an answer from the UN. It tries to force the UN into doing what it wants, and if the UN says no, then it just does the “unilateral thing” instead of desisting.
Notice that in the case of the current Iraq war, the US asked the UN for authorization, but just acted unilaterally once the UN said “No”.
Nate,
The UN now is little more than an anti-semitic, anti-american club. All talk.
Zeno wrote: “The UN now is little more than an anti-semitic, anti-american club. All talk.”
See here for an interesting picture that speaks more than a thousand words. Pretty interesting:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/latuff050706.html
Nate.
Not to belitle the point but Garrison’s comments are appropriate to all forms of negotiation. I recall when the Win-Win philosophy took hold in the business world. It becam a time wasting excercise.
Nate, those cartoons you’ve linked us to only illustrates the cognitive disconnect among you liberals.
In the first cartoon, a tied up Koffi Anan, (chuckle, snort), doesn’t need to ask who would defend the Palestinians from Israel if the Palestinians hadnt blown up the bus full of people as depicted in the second cartoon, (containing more liberal moral equivalency), in which Israel would have felt no need to seek retribution with an airstrike harming people they hadnt intended to.
“You can’t have it both ways, Nate.”
Sure he can. He’s probably even proud of his ability to accuse the US of crimes against humanity no matter what we do.
What Nate doesn’t realize is that by condemning the US for everything it does, he’s really freed us from having to pay attention to any of his opinions. We are damned in Nate’s eyes merely for existing, so as long as we exist, we will just have to exist under Nate’s Damnation.
Fortunately, Nate has already demonstrated that he has no power at all over those who ignore him. So ignore him we do.
I recommend that when the North Korean people rise up and overthrow the dictatorship, we support them — and not withdraw our support as happened when Iraqis tried to overthrow Saddam after the first Gulf War.
Nate – You’re talking about a bunch of starving people, who live in a nation where every third person is proably in the (underpaid) employ of the government as a spy, who will turn their neighbors in to the police for making a joke about Kim’s hair – ‘rising up’ to overthrow a dictatorship?
You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
“You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?”
maryatexitzero
That hasn’t stopped him so far.
He’s terminally deluded; beyond therapy, beyond medication. “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig”
Nate does serve as a demonstration that there actually are people who think like he thinks. In large numbers and with their opinions granted undue weight, they can even take over institutions like the UN and reduce them to complete fecklessness, as they did with the League of Nations leading up to World War II.
Don’t you just love the way that the right always revert to type and start the childish name calling and dismiss arrogantly any differing view when they can’t get their own way in a discussion. Tantrums are not big and they are not clever people!! Discuss like adults.
“Back to your schoolroom, Lucy, and be quick about it!” he said, as her rotund rump bounce-bounce-bounced back to grammar class.
Sorry about the last post — not the content but the fact I gave a bad link to my homepage. It’s corrected below. In the meantime I went to Lucy’s blog. She’s for peace not war. How vewy bwave! How more and more and more moral! Wow! What an idea! If only Hitler had thought of it! Imagine! Imagine there’s no thisandthatbadstuff. It’s easy if you try. Only one problem: politics is filled with two types: psychopaths and angry people who really wish they didn’t have to spend their lives trying to stop ’em. Kinda like the Lazarus episode in Star Trek. Hark! I hear its theme! woooo-woooooooo-wooo-woo-woo-woo-woooooooo…….
Hey Neo, this was a great post. And I mean it.
One of your best, I believe, you should add to the bar.
Lucy, if you want arguments from the right, you should google Bookworm on word press.
Bookworm, Michael Yon, and Blackfive have the best arguments on the right. Neo-Neocon is to be included of course, since I’m commenting here.
It is invalid to believe that the “arguments” presented in the comments section are the best of the Right or even the Republicans. This is not their blog or mine, and therefore the time people can devote to making arguments on the comments section are necessarily of a limited nature. Except for people like confude and conned however, they seem to have an infinite amount of time to post arguments here, before haloscan went up and they disappeared for some unknown reason…
The reason why people here act coldly towards you and others that agree with you, lucy, is because they’ve already rehashed these types of arguments 50 times at least in the past 6 or so years.
They’ve seen it all. Good, bad, the ugly. Maybe they are curious so as to read something new, maybe that is why they debate here.
People get deja vu, and when they get deja vu, they start trying to make individual responses, instead of the arguments they know they should make. They are not the Left, people here I mean. They are not in lockstep, and by that I mean if one person makes one argument, another person will not say “I agree 110%, and yes this or that other”. SO this means the best argument is only supported by 1 or 2 people, while the others are doing their own thing, because a lot of don’t really like being in an echo chamber, me included.
That’s not psychological analysis, as limited as it may be.
Rickl, I don’t think they mind, but I’ve never actually asked them that. They do mind if you lie and say you were a former Marine and served, however. Or if you say you were awarded the Medal of Honor when you really weren’t. They get pissed about that, cause you are pissing on all their buddies that really died in war.
As a mark of recognition and respect, Simper Fidelis is the standard that the Marine Corps try to uphold. Do they mind if civilians uphold the same manner of honor and always being faithful, to the Marines? I think they would respect you more for that, if you really supported them and were faithful to them. Someone like Murtha saying “Semper Fi” however… is not looked upon fondly by the military, especially the Marines.
Abu, is there a midi file on the site that plays “Kumbayah” and Lennon’s “Imagine”?
Would somebody tell Lucy of the “rotund rump”, that no one is obliged to engage her in fatuous games of pat-a-cake?
Btw, that should read as “that is my psychological analysis, as limited as it may be”
I had some disagreements with the real clear guy, wrote it here.
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/07/realclearpolitics-article-iranian-war.html
I hate duplicating arguments.
Reverting to type..love it, love it, love it. Can always rely on the right for it.
There are a few exceptions here but generally it is just the usual insult flinging. I have bookmarked the few people who i would like to read more of and will just leave the rest of you to it. Neo-con, you have some good people here (Ymar for example) who make a good argument and some real stinkers who do not do your well written pieces justice.
Take care all
LucyP
The very fact that Lucy can consider any argument of mine “good”, is pretty good justification for why I was right when I said that Lucy was not part of the Left. Not in the sense that I meant when I used the Left, and not in the sense that most people used it either. My suspicions were validated, because I believe I can read people on the internet better than the average.
I don’t see myself as on the right, because I don’t view politics metaphysically as a spectrum. From Infant Red Left to Ultra Violent Right. I view it was a circle, go left far enough, hit the far right.
I am neither excusing terroist actions via the recent killing and mutilation of two American soldiers on tape, as the NYTimes does, nor do I get out of control with rage and advocate the execution of Iraqi civilians in retaliation.
People like stevie and probligo and tequila would disagree of course. But of course, they are the quintessential Left in my view so I cannot really expect them to comprehend the essence of others. I got tired of partisan differences a few years ago. Sure, it is good for training, and for neophytes to the political arena, but eventually you transcend the limitations of party and politics.
One thing I did notice and appreciate. Whenever I criticized Bush, Republicans and people like neo-neocon either agreed with me or they respected my views. Whenever I praised Bush, the Left would attack me and excorciate me, not to mention the ridicule and insults. That, in essence, is the quintessential Left. Pat Buchanan included of course.
There is another problem here and that is the institutional one. State believes in negotiation and diplomacy and apparently nothing else. To be as inoffensive as possible and never to tell the sometimes ugly truth is their goal. Empathize, not criticize, might be their motto.
It has been said that “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” This is the State Department’s MO to a T.
“People like stevie and probligo and tequila would disagree of course. But of course, they are the quintessential Left in my view so I cannot really expect them to comprehend the essence of others
Y, your presumption and gratuitous insult for my part is answered here.
Thanks for providing more support for my argument, probligo.
I see the malevolent clowns at the UN, led by Kofi with his big red nose and striped dunce cap with the propeller on top, have called for a UN “peacekeeping force.” I wonder, is this their paedophile peacekeeping force or their run and hide peacekeeping force or perhaps its their collaborate with one side peacekeeping force? So many choices.
It’s the rape force
“Reverting to type..love it, love it, love it. Can always rely on the right for it.”
That’s nice, Lucy. Do you have an argument?
“I think it’s also safe to say that these respective countries might be run by tyrants, but, they do not, under any rational circumstances, constitute a grave ‘threat’ to the Western world, . . .”
NK has nukes (thanks Clinton) and systems for delivering said nukes to the US mainland. That constituits a “grave threat” IMHO.
No, NK doesn’t have the power to end Western culture. It does have the power to end millions of lives.