<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NATO&#8217;s surreal world</title>
	<atom:link href="http://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:18:10 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mcfly</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/#comment-2934</link>
		<dc:creator>mcfly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=2027#comment-2934</guid>
		<description>You gotta admit TB, you&#039;d put the halfway point on the liberal&#039;s one yard line. Maybe in the end zone. Makes it difficult to take your concerns on this one seriously.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You gotta admit TB, you&#8217;d put the halfway point on the liberal&#8217;s one yard line. Maybe in the end zone. Makes it difficult to take your concerns on this one seriously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ER</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/#comment-2930</link>
		<dc:creator>ER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=2027#comment-2930</guid>
		<description>I never said I had no political opinions, or even that I was a strict middle of the roader, I&#039;ve always been proudly liberal and proud to admit it.

What I never felt was a pathological need to inflict my views on anyone else. 

After all, just because I don&#039;t take Mexican wrestling seriously doesn&#039;t mean I can&#039;t occasionally enjoy a match.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never said I had no political opinions, or even that I was a strict middle of the roader, I&#8217;ve always been proudly liberal and proud to admit it.</p>
<p>What I never felt was a pathological need to inflict my views on anyone else. </p>
<p>After all, just because I don&#8217;t take Mexican wrestling seriously doesn&#8217;t mean I can&#8217;t occasionally enjoy a match.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TB</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/#comment-2927</link>
		<dc:creator>TB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:55:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=2027#comment-2927</guid>
		<description>No, my response does not &quot;corroborate&quot; your comments.  My response made the reasonable point that your post was, to put it gently, inaccurate.  And then I welcomed discussion of specifics.

You were never a political &quot;agnostic.&quot;  There have been enough examples here of your pre-Zone views to nail that one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, my response does not &#8220;corroborate&#8221; your comments.  My response made the reasonable point that your post was, to put it gently, inaccurate.  And then I welcomed discussion of specifics.</p>
<p>You were never a political &#8220;agnostic.&#8221;  There have been enough examples here of your pre-Zone views to nail that one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ER</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/#comment-2924</link>
		<dc:creator>ER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:17:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=2027#comment-2924</guid>
		<description>Your response corroborates my comments perfectly.

TB, if you post here just to enlighten us barbarian Liberals on the subtler points of Conservative thought, then have no fear, you have succeeded admirably.

We&#039;ve also gotten a crash course on Conservative methods and motivations too. I can&#039;t speak for any other Zoners, but in my case, you have succeeded in turning someone who once viewed politics as a dreary pseudo-sport, somewhat akin to Mexican wrestling, into a very skeptical observer and highly partisan analyst, perhaps even a potential activist.  I&#039;ll give you full credit for that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your response corroborates my comments perfectly.</p>
<p>TB, if you post here just to enlighten us barbarian Liberals on the subtler points of Conservative thought, then have no fear, you have succeeded admirably.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve also gotten a crash course on Conservative methods and motivations too. I can&#8217;t speak for any other Zoners, but in my case, you have succeeded in turning someone who once viewed politics as a dreary pseudo-sport, somewhat akin to Mexican wrestling, into a very skeptical observer and highly partisan analyst, perhaps even a potential activist.  I&#8217;ll give you full credit for that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TB</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/#comment-2922</link>
		<dc:creator>TB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:05:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=2027#comment-2922</guid>
		<description>I think the key to the &quot;meeting half-way&quot; deal is where exactly the &quot;half-way&quot; point is.

Go over a few political issues in your mind and put some pins in the board at various points.  See if you notice anything.

Just one example:  where is the &quot;middle ground&quot; on government health care?  Right now, close to half of our health care is already paid for by the government.  Is that the &quot;half-way&quot; point?  If not, where is it?

Really, when you actually think about it, issue after issue, which side is really &quot;their way or the highway?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the key to the &#8220;meeting half-way&#8221; deal is where exactly the &#8220;half-way&#8221; point is.</p>
<p>Go over a few political issues in your mind and put some pins in the board at various points.  See if you notice anything.</p>
<p>Just one example:  where is the &#8220;middle ground&#8221; on government health care?  Right now, close to half of our health care is already paid for by the government.  Is that the &#8220;half-way&#8221; point?  If not, where is it?</p>
<p>Really, when you actually think about it, issue after issue, which side is really &#8220;their way or the highway?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ER</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/#comment-2919</link>
		<dc:creator>ER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=2027#comment-2919</guid>
		<description>&quot;They don&#039;t want people like me on board.&quot;

Yeah, I know what you mean about them. You don&#039;t really disagree with them in principle, just in the details. It&#039;s like you want to meet them half-way, it&#039;s the reasonable, fair, LIBERAL thing to do, right? 

But with them, its always their way or the highway. They seem to be unable to distinguish between cooperation and appeasement, between working together and complete surrender.  And if you concede any point to them, they perceive it as cowardice or weakness, not open-mindedness. Agreement on any issue is not enough, they want uncritical acceptance of everything. 

It&#039;s like..., like, they are just...well, there just is no other word for it: pricks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;They don&#8217;t want people like me on board.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yeah, I know what you mean about them. You don&#8217;t really disagree with them in principle, just in the details. It&#8217;s like you want to meet them half-way, it&#8217;s the reasonable, fair, LIBERAL thing to do, right? </p>
<p>But with them, its always their way or the highway. They seem to be unable to distinguish between cooperation and appeasement, between working together and complete surrender.  And if you concede any point to them, they perceive it as cowardice or weakness, not open-mindedness. Agreement on any issue is not enough, they want uncritical acceptance of everything. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s like&#8230;, like, they are just&#8230;well, there just is no other word for it: pricks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mcfly</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/#comment-2913</link>
		<dc:creator>mcfly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:15:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=2027#comment-2913</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d tend to agree. I&#039;m not really sure we (or the Europeans) should be in Libya. As I said months ago, he&#039;s a bastard, but he&#039;s &lt;em&gt;their&lt;/em&gt; bastard. If the Libyans aren&#039;t ready or able to handle this themselves, well maybe they have to wait another generation. In the meantime they could continue to blame us for everything that doesn&#039;t go their way.

And if it turns out that the Europeans can&#039;t handle it either, at least America is knee deep rather than neck deep. We&#039;ll still take all the lumps if things go south, though.

As for Republicans...sheesh. I &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; to beleive, if I may borrow the phrase. In all sincerity, I do. I want to find conservatives candidates that I like and trust. But the aggressive &quot;in your face&quot; conservatives make that so damn difficult. They don&#039;t &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; people like me onboard. I&#039;m a stupid spineless moderate after all, and they&#039;re having way too much fun pissing in my Corn Flakes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d tend to agree. I&#8217;m not really sure we (or the Europeans) should be in Libya. As I said months ago, he&#8217;s a bastard, but he&#8217;s <em>their</em> bastard. If the Libyans aren&#8217;t ready or able to handle this themselves, well maybe they have to wait another generation. In the meantime they could continue to blame us for everything that doesn&#8217;t go their way.</p>
<p>And if it turns out that the Europeans can&#8217;t handle it either, at least America is knee deep rather than neck deep. We&#8217;ll still take all the lumps if things go south, though.</p>
<p>As for Republicans&#8230;sheesh. I <em>want</em> to beleive, if I may borrow the phrase. In all sincerity, I do. I want to find conservatives candidates that I like and trust. But the aggressive &#8220;in your face&#8221; conservatives make that so damn difficult. They don&#8217;t <em>want</em> people like me onboard. I&#8217;m a stupid spineless moderate after all, and they&#8217;re having way too much fun pissing in my Corn Flakes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ER</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/26/natos-surreal-world/#comment-2880</link>
		<dc:creator>ER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=2027#comment-2880</guid>
		<description>NATO definitely has its problems, but Obama has succeeded in using them to further American policy at minimum risk to both US interests and his own domestic political position. We get to make things very rough on Khadaffy, the Europeans take the blame if anything goes wrong, we get credit if it works, US servicemen are not being killed, shot down or taken prisoner, and it just costs us a little money, much of which we get to write off  as training anyway.  Brilliant.

Face it, Libya is Europe&#039;s problem, not ours, they have to deal with it, we don&#039;t. But we had to get involved, if only because NATO is reluctantly with us in Iraq and Afghanistan where they feel they have no pressing interests. So we had to provide them something or risk losing that middle eastern support. Quid pro yadda yadda. Those who so self-righteously condemn Obama&#039;s Libya policy should remind themselves of this.  These allies are dying for us, we owe them.

If Khadaffy had indeed carried out a massacre in Benghazi, the Republicans would never had let Obama forget it. Now they are bouncing off the walls trying to find some way of both defending their reflexive hawkish nature and still blame their Dem nemesis for anything he does, even if it was something they supported yesterday. I can&#039;t help the feeling the Chicago community organizer is leading them by the nose in foreign affairs, actually enlisting them to help carry out his foreign policy.  Whether this will make up for Republican efforts to sabotage his domestic programs remains to be seen, but at least you have to admire the way he is finessing them.

The funny part is that now the Republicans, in their desperation to find SOMETHING they can accuse Obama of, are starting to drift towards isolationism, a policy I suspect Obama is really for (after all, remember his campaign promises?). The Reps are practically begging him to do what he wants to do anyway, pull the troops out of the middle east. I love it. The &quot;Democrats can&#039;t handle national defense&quot; meme is shattered.

The President, trying to follow a graduated, responsible policy, has resisted taking advantage of the bin Ladin takedown and revealed Pakistani treachery to just pull out of the middle east and southwest Asia altogether. After all, we do have legitimate interests there that will not be addressed if we just depart en masse.

This takes a certain amount of political integrity and restraint on his part.  With Osama dead, Al-Quaeda crippled by his drone attacks and concentration on the Afghan (not Iraq) theater, and the Pakis disgraced and exposed as the lying cheats they are, American (and even Republican )opinion is primed for a full scale withdrawal from the Muslim world.  But even though I suspect Obama is tempted to do exactly that, I also believe he knows it is not the right thing to do. The flak he has gotten from Left AND Right over his pace of withdrawal suggests he has engineered the perfect compromise.

I think this is really what is behind the sputtering fury from the Right these days.  Maybe its not just their precious tax cut.  Deep down inside, maybe even subconsciously, they know they are being...managed.  The only way they can be sure of getting the White House back in 2012 is if they make sure the economy 
is totally trashed by then.  And as we can see, they are working as hard as they can on that.

Anyway, that&#039;s how I see it. What do you think?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NATO definitely has its problems, but Obama has succeeded in using them to further American policy at minimum risk to both US interests and his own domestic political position. We get to make things very rough on Khadaffy, the Europeans take the blame if anything goes wrong, we get credit if it works, US servicemen are not being killed, shot down or taken prisoner, and it just costs us a little money, much of which we get to write off  as training anyway.  Brilliant.</p>
<p>Face it, Libya is Europe&#8217;s problem, not ours, they have to deal with it, we don&#8217;t. But we had to get involved, if only because NATO is reluctantly with us in Iraq and Afghanistan where they feel they have no pressing interests. So we had to provide them something or risk losing that middle eastern support. Quid pro yadda yadda. Those who so self-righteously condemn Obama&#8217;s Libya policy should remind themselves of this.  These allies are dying for us, we owe them.</p>
<p>If Khadaffy had indeed carried out a massacre in Benghazi, the Republicans would never had let Obama forget it. Now they are bouncing off the walls trying to find some way of both defending their reflexive hawkish nature and still blame their Dem nemesis for anything he does, even if it was something they supported yesterday. I can&#8217;t help the feeling the Chicago community organizer is leading them by the nose in foreign affairs, actually enlisting them to help carry out his foreign policy.  Whether this will make up for Republican efforts to sabotage his domestic programs remains to be seen, but at least you have to admire the way he is finessing them.</p>
<p>The funny part is that now the Republicans, in their desperation to find SOMETHING they can accuse Obama of, are starting to drift towards isolationism, a policy I suspect Obama is really for (after all, remember his campaign promises?). The Reps are practically begging him to do what he wants to do anyway, pull the troops out of the middle east. I love it. The &#8220;Democrats can&#8217;t handle national defense&#8221; meme is shattered.</p>
<p>The President, trying to follow a graduated, responsible policy, has resisted taking advantage of the bin Ladin takedown and revealed Pakistani treachery to just pull out of the middle east and southwest Asia altogether. After all, we do have legitimate interests there that will not be addressed if we just depart en masse.</p>
<p>This takes a certain amount of political integrity and restraint on his part.  With Osama dead, Al-Quaeda crippled by his drone attacks and concentration on the Afghan (not Iraq) theater, and the Pakis disgraced and exposed as the lying cheats they are, American (and even Republican )opinion is primed for a full scale withdrawal from the Muslim world.  But even though I suspect Obama is tempted to do exactly that, I also believe he knows it is not the right thing to do. The flak he has gotten from Left AND Right over his pace of withdrawal suggests he has engineered the perfect compromise.</p>
<p>I think this is really what is behind the sputtering fury from the Right these days.  Maybe its not just their precious tax cut.  Deep down inside, maybe even subconsciously, they know they are being&#8230;managed.  The only way they can be sure of getting the White House back in 2012 is if they make sure the economy<br />
is totally trashed by then.  And as we can see, they are working as hard as they can on that.</p>
<p>Anyway, that&#8217;s how I see it. What do you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
