and us being "good", then maybe there would be something to all of this.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I know my own.

1) Our staus as hegemon is benign. Other states see it thus.

See international poll numbers for the debunking of this. Based on recent experiences, I reckon they won't be throwing flowers in any other places America invades either.

We only have the word of the administration that their intentions are benign - but the administration is demonstrably lying about its last adventure. Benign is a tough sell.

2) Any failure to police this new "imperium" would result in "global disorder".

Does one measure "global disorder" by soaring numbers of terrorist incidents and mass casualties in civilian populations?

3) Nothing is more efficacious to the policing of this order than American force.

See two above. Nothing I've encountered in my lifetime has "promoted" global disorder as rapidly as the initiation of this policy has.

4) American must "sustain and enhance" its military supremacy.

That's up to you to decide. But I hope you understand that America, once taking the interventionist route because of the false premises in point one above, will be resisted, and resisted fiercely (naturally - if the situation were reversed, you would too). One needs no crystal ball to predict that it will thereby be compelled to impose or support an effective tyranny because the intensity of the resistance to this ill-considered action will leave it no choice. Upon your own heads be the consequences of that. I see many, many dead people of all nations, including Americans.

That didn't really take too long. Two hundred years since rebelling against a foreign tyranny to propose becoming one.

5) Classical foreign policy realism, in the Scowcroft-Kissinger vein, is devoid of ideas and in the Powell vein, relies on an excess of caution.

Their vision is nothing more complex or visionary than the morally bankrupt and destabilizing resurgence of 19th century nationalism. That was at the root of WWI, one of the most horrific and destructive clashes in the history of the human race. How anyone could fail to see this is simply beyond me - these people must have been raised in steamer trunks with the lids soldered shut. It is obvious they have no grasp of history, or that they mistakenly feel themselves to be operating outside of it.

For yes, it's an idea. It's an unoriginal idea. It's an ancient idea. It's a tried-and-rejected idea, a discredited idea. It's an idea that led to literally millions of deaths. It's the same idea that every nationalistic and imperialistic aggressor nation has ever had, with "For the British Empire!" and "For The Fatherland and the Fueher!" scratched out and "For America!" written in.

No - the UN is an idea. The ICC is an idea. Multilateralism is an idea. Consensus is an idea. Leadership through inspiration rather than domination by force is an idea. The global rule of law is an idea. Kennedy had ideas. All of these are new ideas, "our century" ideas, "our lifetime" ideas.

All these gutless danger-dodging tough-guys-with-maps-and-pushpins chickenhawks have is maps and money.

And excess of caution? The administration withdrew from the ICC because it fears it. It withdrew specifically because the Administration fears falling under its jurisdiction for its actions.

Accusations of "excess of caution"? From the mouths of men who have such little confidence in the defensibility of their actions - and that have such little courage to face any consequences of them - that they had to close that door before they began?

And in particular - from the mouths of men who not only did not volunteer for but largely evaded their military service in wartime?

That would be amusing if it weren't such a complete grotesque insult to all serving soldiers to imply that Powell suffers from an "excess of caution" when he served and bled in Vietnam while the neocons largely cited "other priorities".

They are cowards and chickenhawks, and one of the prime tactics of a coward is to accuse others of what we secretly despise in ourselves. The one blooded soldier in the White House was the dove. Based on the conspicuous lack of valor in their collective military records, there's very few of the neocons that would have the courage to risk shedding their own blood for their goals.

It will be the military they send - and it will be American citizens, around the globe and on your own soil who - lacking the protection of the armored bunkers and multiple layers of military security surrounding these gutless pissants - will face the predictable and inevitable backlash of vastly increased global resistance, insurgency and terrorism.

If Americans don't resist this there are extremely ugly days ahead.

How far is too far? And what happens when you get there?

I don't know. What happens when oil's really expensive and some clever bunny points out how much oil Alberta has? Would realism and pragmatism in geopolitics prevail then?

Why is that ludicrous? Because Canadians are white? You say you have faith in your government? Based on what?

It's no longer unimaginable, given the moral and mental illness of current American leaders, to be tried and sentenced to death in absentia for the crime of "being born on top of something America wants" today.

How far is too far? You were already there at Iraq. That was too far. It's time to ask "how can America make amends?"

And step one is marching with torches and pitchforks and cleaning up the infinitesimal fraction of a percent of a 5% minority of the world's population that neocon belief represents before it becomes the rest of the world's problem to deal with - again.

1) Our staus as hegemon is benign. Other states see it thus.

See international poll numbers for the debunking of this. Based on recent experiences, I reckon they won't be throwing flowers in any other places America invades either.

We only have the word of the administration that their intentions are benign - but the administration is demonstrably lying about its last adventure. Benign is a tough sell.

Damn them for repeating what the Clinton administration said about Iraq.  Repeating those lies was totally unacceptable.  And actually wanting to do something based on what everyone pretty much believed was true was even worse.

As to the benign nature of the American project, that is, of course in the eye of the beholder.  I'm sure all those third world dictators and aspiring strong men are non-plused, but your average person probably wants more, not less input into their governance.

I seriously doubt that any serious neo-cons really believe that there is universal acceptance of American hegemony as benign.

2) Any failure to police this new "imperium" would result in "global disorder".

Does one measure "global disorder" by soaring numbers of terrorist incidents and mass casualties in civilian populations?

Yeah, the 90s were clearly a decade of global order.  Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda; in fact, as I recall roughly 1 country a year melted down in Africa.  Oh, and by the way, just sitting back and letting the UN deal with the Iraq situation was killing 5,000 to 7,000 Iraqis a month.  

3) Nothing is more efficacious to the policing of this order than American force.

See two above. Nothing I've encountered in my lifetime has "promoted" global disorder as rapidly as the initiation of this policy has.

Yeah, cause sitting back, letting over 1,000,000 people die in Bosnia and Rwanda was a great contribution to "global order."

4) American must "sustain and enhance" its military supremacy.

That's up to you to decide. But I hope you understand that America, once taking the interventionist route because of the false premises in point one above, will be resisted, and resisted fiercely (naturally - if the situation were reversed, you would too). One needs no crystal ball to predict that it will thereby be compelled to impose or support an effective tyranny because the intensity of the resistance to this ill-considered action will leave it no choice. Upon your own heads be the consequences of that. I see many, many dead people of all nations, including Americans.

That didn't really take too long. Two hundred years since rebelling against a foreign tyranny to propose becoming one.

Well, anyone who doesn't agree with your objectives is going to resist you, but just being resisted doesn't make you wrong.  The Germans resisted our efforts in WWII, that must mean that we were the bad guys in that war too.

In fact, there are many people in the world who have wanted a more aggressive America, the Bosnian Muslims, the Tutsis in Rwanda, the victims of genocide in Sudan today.

5) Classical foreign policy realism, in the Scowcroft-Kissinger vein, is devoid of ideas and in the Powell vein, relies on an excess of caution.

Their vision is nothing more complex or visionary than the morally bankrupt and destabilizing resurgence of 19th century nationalism. That was at the root of WWI, one of the most horrific and destructive clashes in the history of the human race. How anyone could fail to see this is simply beyond me - these people must have been raised in steamer trunks with the lids soldered shut. It is obvious they have no grasp of history, or that they mistakenly feel themselves to be operating outside of it.

For yes, it's an idea. It's an unoriginal idea. It's an ancient idea. It's a tried-and-rejected idea, a discredited idea. It's an idea that led to literally millions of deaths. It's the same idea that every nationalistic and imperialistic aggressor nation has ever had, with "For the British Empire!" and "For The Fatherland and the Fueher!" scratched out and "For America!" written in.

Well, let's start with nationalism, which can be either positive or negative.  Yes, nationalism has been used to justify many terrible things in the world, but it has also been used in the service of many progressive policies and efforts as well.  Many of the recent successful democratization efforts (Georgia, Ukraine for example) have been supported by a deep sense of nationalism.

Realism is about power, pure and simple, as exemplified by Churchill's statement that he would make a deal with the devil to defeat Hitler.

No - the UN is an idea. The ICC is an idea. Multilateralism is an idea. Consensus is an idea. Leadership through inspiration rather than domination by force is an idea. The global rule of law is an idea. Kennedy had ideas. All of these are new ideas, "our century" ideas, "our lifetime" ideas.

Yes, these are all great and noble ideas, but they need to be backed up by something.  Rule of Law only works when you have a police force that has the authority to use force if people decide to break the rules.  The UN was supposed to be enforcing sanctions against Iraq, but instead its people were taking billions in bribes to let Iraq evade sanctions.  The ICC is a great idea, but who was going to drag Saddam in front of it for what he did to the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs?  

By the way, since you're so concerned about "historical accuracy," you might want to remember that Kennedy was the one that got us into Vietnam, and was on his way to give a speech stating the peace was weakness unless it was backed up with military force (sounds rather neo-conish to me).

All these gutless danger-dodging tough-guys-with-maps-and-pushpins chickenhawks have is maps and money.

And excess of caution? The administration withdrew from the ICC because it fears it. It withdrew specifically because the Administration fears falling under its jurisdiction for its actions.

Accusations of "excess of caution"? From the mouths of men who have such little confidence in the defensibility of their actions - and that have such little courage to face any consequences of them - that they had to close that door before they began?

Well, it was caution that lead to sitting back and doing nothing in for 3 ½ years in Bosnia.  And the ICC is a court of last resort, which will only take cases that local governments have made no effort to investigate.  The US Government has made numerous investigations of the pre-war intel regarding Iraq and cleared this (and the previous administration) of deliberate wrongdoing.

And in particular - from the mouths of men who not only did not volunteer for but largely evaded their military service in wartime?

That would be amusing if it weren't such a complete grotesque insult to all serving soldiers to imply that Powell suffers from an "excess of caution" when he served and bled in Vietnam while the neocons largely cited "other priorities".

They are cowards and chickenhawks, and one of the prime tactics of a coward is to accuse others of what we secretly despise in ourselves. The one blooded soldier in the White House was the dove. Based on the conspicuous lack of valor in their collective military records, there's very few of the neocons that would have the courage to risk shedding their own blood for their goals.

It will be the military they send - and it will be American citizens, around the globe and on your own soil who - lacking the protection of the armored bunkers and multiple layers of military security surrounding these gutless pissants - will face the predictable and inevitable backlash of vastly increased global resistance, insurgency and terrorism.

As opposed to all the chicken hawks in the previous administration who deployed the US military more times in their 8 years in office than the entire cold war period?  

Oh, by the way, how much time in uniform did you spend?

And I am impressed that you know the hearts of these men, men you have probably never met, so well.

If Americans don't resist this there are extremely ugly days ahead.

Well, American did nothing during the 90s, and the ugliness just passed up by, until 9-11, so your advice is obviously the best path to follow.

How far is too far? And what happens when you get there?

I don't know. What happens when oil's really expensive and some clever bunny points out how much oil Alberta has? Would realism and pragmatism in geopolitics prevail then?

Why is that ludicrous? Because Canadians are white? You say you have faith in your government? Based on what?

It's no longer unimaginable, given the moral and mental illness of current American leaders, to be tried and sentenced to death in absentia for the crime of "being born on top of something America wants" today.

How far is too far? You were already there at Iraq. That was too far. It's time to ask "how can America make amends?"

And step one is marching with torches and pitchforks and cleaning up the infinitesimal fraction of a percent of a 5% minority of the world's population that neocon belief represents before it becomes the rest of the world's problem to deal with - again.

Yeah, when you can't get what you want through elections, resort to force.  Now, remimd me again why you don't like the neo-cons.

Oh, by the way, if you're not following what's going on in Canada, the corrupt Liberal Party government is about to fall, empowering the nationalist in Quebec and possibly leading to the disintegration of Canada.  Alberta may end up as a part of the US without invasion.

P.S. History is a human construct.  It is the deliberate remembering AND forgetting of things.  It is a deliberate simplification of a complex and controdictory reality into a simple and purposeful narative.  It changes as the circumstances change.  

But as your post intermingles your thoughts with neocon affirmations, it's not surprising that an arrow landed close.

for the record everyone: I was not addressing SPK as I don't remotely believe they are his beliefs. I was also not addressing that to Bacevich: clearly his intent is to illuminate those beliefs.

Please believe me when I say the use of "you" is a rhetorical device, not a personal assault; it's directed in the abstract at supporters of the neocon view.

To which I can only add "aaaaaggggggggggghhhhh".

thoughts were and what thoughts I was conveying that  were those of the neo-cons. Except for one small instance, the post is pretty clear about what is my opnion and what is not. Now, what might come across as my thoughts is simply analysis of what I see. Criticize my analysis to be sure. But don't don't tell me just because I analyze something I believe it is the right thing to do. Where would we be if people couldn't even anaylze things for fear of being misinterpreted?

I think the post stands on its own.

as if i could...:)

Fine.

However, given the responses and your response to them, I stand by my caution on clarity, that's all it was, a comment on style not substance.

And everything is ok now.....

i have been misunderstood a number of times on personal communications on the internet ( and still am sometimes on the agonist). However, if you need to respond "don't kill the messenger",  then someone has misunderstood someone, that's all I meant (don't misunderstand me :-), not trying to preach)

 

you've posted substance, and I am going to address that substance.

But I draw your attention to the fact that nothing that I have ever posted on the Agonist has been directed at you personally, whereas it's pretty clear that your "you" is "me". I'd also draw your attention to the fact that you won't see a lot of that here - it's not that kind of place.

This isn't meant to be a "shaming"; I've made posting mistakes (and undoubtedly still do, and probably will again) and folks have (quite gently, I thought, which really impressed me) pointed out to me that "that's not what we do here". I agreed that SPK was quite right in bristling when he thought I'd personalized this, and I took immediate pains to clear it up, as it was never remotely my intent to cast him as the "you" in my post.

'Nuff said?

eom

one thing about internet communications is that tone is very hard to convey and that does lead to lots of miscommunication.

Cavaet: the following may all be spin.

Tone is the whyfore of the metaphor "clear as a bell."

I myself truly believe the current internet situation makes us all autistic:

Another dominant theory, championed mainly by philosophers like Goldman, is known as simulation theory. It's based on the idea that people understand what is going through the minds of others by mentally mimicking what the other is thinking, feeling or doing-in essence, putting themselves in the other's shoes. The discovery of mirror neurons backs up this theory nicely.

from Empathy neurons and autism

http://scoop.agonist.org/comments/2005/1/20/122535/749/34#34

 with an important exception made for those who have the writing skills, skills which also happen to be the demagogue's most effective tool. I hope that those who have this skill use it wisely. I fear they will not.

I really do think sometimes that this "internet information revolution" is at the stage right now of the print press and handbill in the 19th century. In many ways it is a quite primitive way of getting information.

I find the work of a few blogs with comments, like Bag News Notes for one example, to be quite admirable and special in this regard, but I find the majority of blogs just the opposite: they offer more spin, en masse, by individuals, in the place of spin by corporate media, otherwise known as "noise". (Another one that fits with the sound metaphors!)

I have always been drawn to participating at Agonist mainly because it was a place where there were a substantial number of members who liked to de-code spin, working in a collaborative spirit to accomplish that. (Said less snootily: a gathering place to share and interpret media when the spouse is tired of discussing it.) I know I am not alone, that others also have had that impression of it.

And it is also why when what I see (the "I see" is a big cavaet; I am fully aware of how subjective that is) as posters intentionally spinning at Agonist, I have attacked those posts. (Not always, just when I have the time, of course. And when the poster is so obviously a hopeless spinner, sometimes it just seems not worth the time.)

And when I myself decide to vent by posting a "rant" (rant = 19th-century stump speech = emotional reaction = spin) I fully expect and hope for getting quality counter-spin in response.

This is something that I personally feel is very important, and that comes from my own decades of study of the cultural messages sent in the 19th and early 20th century, and what happened after they were received. It has nothing to do with my politics, or anyone else's.

P.S. No time today to add my own 'noise' on actual content, to the cacophony of several interesting threads...I have squeezed this in "for lunch"...be forewarned: maybe later.

turn this into a personal thing.  I do tend to respond to arugments in the tennor in which they are presented though.  I'm sorry if you took my response to your post as a peronal attack.  It wasn't meant to be, at least not in the way that you seem to have taken it.  There is a tendency by many people to judge others by the ideas they hold rather than the actions they take.  I don't think you're (using you in the broad sense) a bad person just because you dissagree with me.

I will point out that if you are going to base an argument on the lack of character of the people you disagree with, they you open yourself up to questions of your own character.  For example, if you make a state such as:

"They are cowards and chickenhawks, and one of the prime tactics of a coward is to accuse others of what we secretly despise in ourselves."

I think it is fair to ask if you have the authority (are not a "chickenhawk" yourself from the previous administration) to make that argument.  

Focus on the ideas rather then the people, and that issue dissapears.

I think it is also incumbent on people who use historical examples to at least qualify them to the extent they are applicable to show they appriciate the degree that any historical situation is complex and controdictory.  For example, you chose to point out JFK as one of your specific examples of counter ideas to the neo-cons, but he actually was much closer to the neo-con position than you seem to appriciate (does the line "bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." ring a bell?).  That's not meant as a personal attack on you, simply a challenge to your argument.

I am quite guilty of this from time to time. Fortunately I have readers like you who keep me honest and on my toes. I'll include Maddog in there as well, although I really hardly every agree with him, the whole point of this site is to learn from each other and exchange ideas. But, even I loose sight of that from time to time.

So, let's all try to stick to the ideas and not the personalities. Even I'll try and do that! ;-)

for puzzled Agonistas.

I'm sorry if you took my response to your post as a peronal attack.  It wasn't meant to be, at least not in the way that you seem to have taken it

Okay. Fair enough. In what way did you intend it as a personal attack then?

For the puzzled Agonistas, the context from a previous thread:

http://www.agonist.org/story/2005/5/7/181047/2353

Here you identify the target of your post.

"Sorry SP...That comment was referring to the first response to the thread, which didn't (at least to me) engage the content."

http://www.agonist.org/comments/2005/5/7/181047/2353/5/

That comment was accurate and fair enough, too - I "didn't" engage the content, I merely snarked. I had no problem with that particular statement; it was a call to engage.

It was this I had a problem with:

Here, personalization begins:

"I guess you're not old enough to remember the Carter administration and the national humiliation of the Iran Hostage Crisis."

http://www.agonist.org/comments/2005/5/7/181047/2353/3/

You are quite correct when you say "I guess". You don't know my age - and it is not your concern. That's intentional; stick to engaging ideas. All I intend to say further on the accuracy of your guesses about "me personally" is that I watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon on the family B&W tv in 1969.

Now, at that point I simply decided not to engage your content - the personalization "chilled the debate", and in fact brought it to a standstill (you'll note the thread stopped there) - as I must point out it has also done here. If your posts had less veiled personal animosity I might care to engage them and we might have good and spirited but ultimately civil debates.

Instead of none at all. Notice we aren't debating the thread topic any more.

Now, you're most likely a fair minded and decent type like most folks (and I certainly start from the "benefit of the doubt" stance on that) so a couple of things are probably occurring to you.

• that no matter how heated some of my posts, I've actually never addressed you personally and directly with any sort of disrespect. Do I offend your beliefs? I could show you points of your posts that are offensive to my beliefs. Yet I don't take you personally when you use terms like "moralistic handwringing". I recognize it for the heated rhetoric of a man who believes very passionately in his POV - even if I think you're wrong. And that a man has every right to ask the same as he gives.
• that you identified the previous post I'm mentioning as being a response to me and at that point you introduced the first comment about personal stuff (which I in fact let slide)
• that your first post in this thread was in fact not a general comment but a "reply to" me and personally asked me about my own service.
• that it's fair to argue the clear beginnings of a pattern of unprovoked personalization.
• that if I was interested in debating your points, that interest might just drop off if the tone seemed to be getting personal meaning debate was actually chilled - which means that your actions had the exact opposite effect than your words indicate you want.
• and that an apology for an acknowledged mistake isn't phrased as "I'm sorry you took it that way", which is meaningless, but "I'm sorry I did it", which says "Okay, I figured it out."

So there it is. We all get a little "positive" about our opinions sometimes. If you care to own your share of that like I hope I'd do if the situations were reversed, I'd accept that at face value and we can move forward.

for puzzled Agonistas.

I'm sorry if you took my response to your post as a peronal attack.  It wasn't meant to be, at least not in the way that you seem to have taken it

Okay. Fair enough. In what way did you intend it as a personal attack then?

I meant it as an attack on the logic of your argument, but if you have defined yourself by your political ideology, then there is no way to separate the two.  That is not how I intended it (as an attack on your person, just on your argument).  

For the puzzled Agonistas, the context from a previous thread:

http://www.agonist.org/story/2005/5/7/181047/2353

Here you identify the target of your post.

"Sorry SP...That comment was referring to the first response to the thread, which didn't (at least to me) engage the content."

http://www.agonist.org/comments/2005/5/7/181047/2353/5/

That comment was accurate and fair enough, too - I "didn't" engage the content, I merely snarked. I had no problem with that particular statement; it was a call to engage.

It was this I had a problem with:

Here, personalization begins:

"I guess you're not old enough to remember the Carter administration and the national humiliation of the Iran Hostage Crisis."

http://www.agonist.org/comments/2005/5/7/181047/2353/3/

Well, obviously I wasn't clear enough.  My statement "Well, in the hopes of advancing...the discussion beyond mere posturing, let's take a look at each these to see what's so objectionable about them." was aimed at you (or more precisely the person who made the first comment, regardless of who it was).  The rest of the post was a point by point response to SP's points and the comment about not remembering the Iran Hostage Crisis was a specific reference to SP.

You are quite correct when you say "I guess". You don't know my age - and it is not your concern. That's intentional; stick to engaging ideas. All I intend to say further on the accuracy of your guesses about "me personally" is that I watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon on the family B&W tv in 1969.

Hey, me too.  I guess we're just a couple of old farts playing with the new fangled internet thing.

Now, at that point I simply decided not to engage your content - the personalization "chilled the debate", and in fact brought it to a standstill (you'll note the thread stopped there) - as I must point out it has also done here. If your posts had less veiled personal animosity I might care to engage them and we might have good and spirited but ultimately civil debates.

Well, that's too bad, but since you admit that your first comment was snarky and you took my second comment directed at SP as "personally" directed at you, your choice.

Instead of none at all. Notice we aren't debating the thread topic any more.

Well, that's because you chose to throw a fit and demand an apology rather than just shrugging it off and moving on with the debate.  As I said, I respond to posts in the tenor they are made.  Yours, in this case, was bitter and angry.  I think (actually, I know) I was restrained in my response.

Now, you're most likely a fair minded and decent type like most folks (and I certainly start from the "benefit of the doubt" stance on that) so a couple of things are probably occurring to you.

*    that no matter how heated some of my posts, I've actually never addressed you personally and directly with any sort of disrespect. Do I offend your beliefs? I could show you points of your posts that are offensive to my beliefs. Yet I don't take you personally when you use terms like "moralistic handwringing". I recognize it for the heated rhetoric of a man who believes very passionately in his POV - even if I think you're wrong. And that a man has every right to ask the same as he gives.

*    that you identified the previous post I'm mentioning as being a response to me and at that point you introduced the first comment about personal stuff (which I in fact let slide)

*    that your first post in this thread was in fact not a general comment but a "reply to" me and personally asked me about my own service.

*    that it's fair to argue the clear beginnings of a pattern of unprovoked personalization.

*    that if I was interested in debating your points, that interest might just drop off if the tone seemed to be getting personal meaning debate was actually chilled - which means that your actions had the exact opposite effect than your words indicate you want.

*    and that an apology for an acknowledged mistake isn't phrased as "I'm sorry you took it that way", which is meaningless, but "I'm sorry I did it", which says "Okay, I figured it out."

So there it is. We all get a little "positive" about our opinions sometimes. If you care to own your share of that like I hope I'd do if the situations were reversed, I'd accept that at face value and we can move forward.

Well, I guess I have been put in my proper place.  As my Royal Army friends would say "I shall now go off and give myself a good talking too."   I'm glad I didn't ask when FDR was elected Pope of the world after you "Infallible" comment in an earlier thread.

First, I'm not going to apologies for thinking you are wrong.  I do think you are wrong.  If you take that as a personal attack, I'm sorry, it's not meant to be.

Second, I do have a strong POV.  It is based on personal experience.  I lived in Yugoslavia for a year in the 80s, so when I hear people talk about how great things were during a time when people I knew and cared about were being subjected to years of war because nobody in the country really gave enough of a damn to use the immense power this country had at the time to stop it, I get a little testy (please note that this covers both the first Bush and the Clinton Administration).

Third, I don't think my comments chilled debate at all.  In fact, if you read the initial post, you will see that my comments actually contributed to this post.  If it chills your participation, oh well, that's your choice.  In fact, your comments amounted to nothing more than an emotional, poorly reasoned attack on the neo-cons because of who they are, not what their ideas are.  If you are going to base your arguments on the weaknesses of the character of the people you disagree with, then be prepared to defend your own character to justify that reasoning.

My comments about your misinterpretation of JFK and my fanciful statements about western Canada were intended to point out that you need to use better examples.

So, let's get back to content.

We have three basically ideological options in foreign policy today; Realism, Neo-Liberalism, and Neo-Conservatism.  Which you do you support and why?

That is not how I intended it (as an attack on your person, just on your argument).  

Should read:

That is not how I intended it (not as an attack on your person, just on your argument).  

this is a question you should post in the diaries, Ranger: "We have three basically ideological options in foreign policy today; Realism, Neo-Liberalism, and Neo-Conservatism.  Which you do you support and why?" and then I will elevate it and everyone on the site can answer it. Now that would be a great debate.

First, I'm not going to apologies for thinking you are wrong.  I do think you are wrong.  If you take that as a personal attack, I'm sorry, it's not meant to be.

Good God no man, I've been wrong a million times. It's how I've learned what little I've learned. I only take it as a personal attack when it's... well, personal. Like accusingly demanding personal information in a transparent ad hominem.

Well, that's too bad, but since you admit that your first comment was snarky and you took my second comment directed at SP as "personally" directed at you, your choice.

Yes, it was a snarky post, and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. Snark has a community-specific nuance here. The folks have been kind enough to tolerate me around here, perhaps because my snark gives them an occasional grin, and because I post substance or opinion too - although I'm certain not enough to compensate for their forbearance.

But you have simply dodged my point and not addressed the evidence, and along the way missed a critical distinction: my snark was not directed at any participant here.

And therein lay the thrust of my point, the point clearly supported by my links, the point you still evade:

You do not need to know how old I am. You do not need to know how long I served. You do not need to assume that I am a Clintonista (I am in fact Canadian).

You do not need personal information about me to respond to my posts. You do not need to personalize.

That's my point. That's a line I didn't cross with you. You've not heard one single personalized or attacking word from me, even on the topic of personalization itself, as far as I'm aware. If one is found, you certainly have my apologies - one will seldom get better than one is prepared to give in this world.

I think (actually, I know) I was restrained in my response.

I thank you for the restraint you displayed.

We have three basically ideological options in foreign policy today; Realism, Neo-Liberalism, and Neo-Conservatism.  Which you do you support and why?

Thank you, but I decline. As I quite clearly stated, we address this first - and then we move on. I think I've given a fair shot at letting you display what you're made of.

Now I'm walking away from the discussion, leaving you to continue talking if you wish.

You may well be brilliant; you may well be entitled to your POV; you certainly have knowledge of interest to myself and other Agonistas, and I'm sure your participation will be valuable; if I see no further benefit in discussion with you, perhaps others will.

"none of the above"....

No, certainly not asking to or starting one-I leave this topic to the enthusiasts, but imo setting it up the way it's currently phrased  is more akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?. than "which candidate on the ballot are you supporting and why"?.

This may just seem like sophistry .

I realize rephrasing as "if there were three ideological..."which would you support and why?"

could well make it a different debate, (or that  "What if" may be implied in how you see the argument.)

Perhaps it would not be as interesting a one- in any case I'm not a debater, just a pointer-outer....

to find something to be offended about.

As I pointed out previously, the initial comment you took offense at (the one guessing if the author was old enough to remember the 70s) in the original Neo-con thread wasn't even directed at you.

You seem to think it is perfectly ok to call people cowards and chickenhawks, yet when asked if you can credibly make that charge, you call it a personal attack.  If you refrain from personal attacks (whether directed at specific or unamed individuals) and you probably won't be asked to justify your personal credibility to make such attacks.