Replies

...This a critique worthy of closer examination....

No it isn't--unless you're a hungry horse. It's merely a series of straw men, each smaller and dryer than the last, lined up and presented as a critique of the antiwar movement.

The mob does not speak for me. Any more than does the War Party. They are flip sides of the same coin and I recongnise them both for what they are---the deadly enemy of all that is good, true and beautiful.

The desperate need to associate anti-interventionist conservatives with the mob indicates a deep insecurity on the part of pro-war conservatives. And you should be insecure.

You are a tiny minority and your antics invigorate your siamese twin--the folks like ANSWER, et al. But once they start wiggling around they will use up your life force.

The citation of the "stockholm sydrome" is accurate---but only to describe the mental state of interventionist conservatives. You are wholly mezmerized by the mob. Just as the Francophobes are wholly absorbed by the French and not by the problem of why the American Administration failed to win the day in the Security Council. Everything is directed towards the Other because you are afraid to examine the vast nothingness of your own position. Both of you are interventionists. Both of you are destroyers. Both of you are progress-mongers.

It appears that the only escape from both of you is what Santayana called "the mental reservation":

"..."Society suffocates liberty merely by existing, and it must exist, and all its members are equally its slaves. The individual may elude the feeling, though not the fact, of subjection to society either by a willing conformity or by a mental reservation....."

What mob? You are the guardian of all that is truthfull, beautiful and good? That's quite a load you bear, and you do it without any irony at all, but gobs of hubris.

I chuckle that you consider me insecure, Askel.You are the one in despair, filled with an aching ennui and pessimism irrational in its tenor.It maybe a gentle Siren song to you, but to anyone else, is a cri de couer, and once more, you are the one who moans about one's lifeforce seeping into a void, not me.

Look up tranference, sweetie.You have it in spades.The vast nothingness you describe as my position is to accept the terms of debate from an opponent's terms and guidelines, which is an admission of defeat and unilateral surrender before the issues have been engaged.It is appeasement, and to do so demands one cedes immediately any moral basis for objection to one who abrogates all to oneself on the grounds of higher enlightenment.You have wittingly placed the demands of a supra-national body, namely the Security Council, above one's national interest, which ought to abhor those who scream about "globalism" and "interventionism".Where is the legitimacy of such a body to demand such subservience when each individual nation can and does have the power to veto such demands on purely national interest stakes alone?

You have generously lumped me in with ANSWER, yet that is where your sensiblities and logical inferences have taken you.You accuse me of all the things you are and do.You have made common cause with the enemies of our time, and wish to drawn others into your suicide pact.

Sorry, not me.I wish to preserve life and liberty, by the strongest means possible.If you lack the will to defend yourself, please try not take that out on the rest of mankind.You have never been one to accept clarity, Askel/Belle, as a sign of deep intellectual rigor or moral constancy, and for that you spin aimlessly about hoping for ways out of the reality that you can never outrun.

Oh gag me.

"We need to teach our kids why social [Leftists] -- including, sometimes, their teachers -- claim that all violence and anger are wrong: It's an expression of hostility toward America itself and an inadequate understanding of sin and the need for justice. And we must make sure that they know why -- in the face of great evil -- getting angry isn't wrong. It's the necessary prologue to justice." --Chuck Colson

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell

The Christian At War

Or perhaps this would register better in your mind as thoughtful commentary on the situation:

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

You are a tiny minority and your antics invigorate your siamese twin--the folks like ANSWER, et al. But once they start wiggling around they will use up your life force.

I will repeat in paraphrase for the benefit of all what has been said of you before.

Like Blanche DuBois, living at the sufferage of family (and strangers, when family gets too sick of you to want to feed your pathetic carcass), your angst and pathos are beyond our skills. You are suicidal, and because your religious convictions (if they can rightly be called that) prohibit the act of taking your own life, you have chosen to despise and work tirelessly for the destruction of the one nation in all the earth that gave you every possible choice for success in life - because in that endless array of choices in that friendly, affluent society, you never made the right ones and were self destructive.

In other words, if you are a miserable failure, everyone else has to have a miserable life, too, preferably at the end of a foriegn weapon.

I don't hate you so much as pity you anymore, and hope to the Almighty that noone sees your shallow and vicious cries for help as rational thought or dialogue worthy of consideration.

You want to commit suicide, do it on your time, not ours.