Dan tdaxp:

January 15th, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Mark,

Thanks for the links — and the kind words! The polisci blog found it interesting, too.

Part II is up now too, by the way.

The Lounsbury - l'Aqoul:

January 15th, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Ah, well, the anti-globo aspect gives me something to whack at the Left about finally!

I am tired of whacking away at the Right Bolsheviks, it leads people to think I have sympathy for the Left when I merely have contempt for its translation into the right.

Ambiguous comment, to be sure, of course, but I think the Islam part is the least.

Paleocon. Yes, I think that is perhaps right, although I have a sense he’s not a Pat Buchanan type, but something rather more well-informed, sophisticated and rational.

Anonymous:

January 15th, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Too kind for the link, zen. Thanks.

mark:

January 16th, 2007 at 5:25 am

Hi Dan

I’ll check it out Tuesday.

Hi Col –

Well, Bush has become such a lightning rod that mere criticism (or praise)of him is taken as some kind of definitive blogospheric tribal marker.

No, I agree. Lang is less a populist a la Buchanan than a genteel Southerner type.

Hi Subadei

Welcome to the blogroll ! ;o)

The Lounsbury:

January 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Yes, silly little tribes.

My resolution to the problem is to simply be mean to everyone and only the clear headed non-tribals will stick around.

Well, that and the sycophants and the gluttons for punishment, but what can one do? No solution is perfect.

mark:

January 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

My resolution to the problem is to simply be mean to everyone and only the clear headed non-tribals will stick around.

It also suits your choleric temperment, which has become something of a brand.

It is more amusing though in the comments sections of blogs where the regulars there are unfamiliar with your style of repartee.

lester:

January 16th, 2007 at 11:43 pm

did pat buchanan do something to you guys? besides predict this war would be the utter disaster it has been? read some zenpundit topics from the early iraq war era and read buchanans “whose war” and tell me who knew what time it was

anyway, col lang is right. consider also both our and israels relations with china. Students at an assembly in Iran barked stuff at the PRESIDENT and nothing happened to them. In china? the repurcussions wouild be a little more severe. whe nthat tai chi lady yelled that stuff at hu jintao when he was here I looked for any mention of it in the chinese media. none.

mark:

January 17th, 2007 at 1:55 am

lester,

As a personality, I like Pat Buchanan. At least through the Reagan years his views on foreign policy were a lot closer to mine than yours.

Here in this discussion however Buchanan’s just a shorthand for a political stance espousing economic nationalism and whatever you want to call his current foreign policy views.

The Lounsbury:

January 17th, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Well, I shall not speak for Mark, but my relatively superficial acq. w Buchanan tells me that he is more or less a vulgar chauvinist, above all in terms of ecnomics (irrationally protectionist) and social affairs (effectively paraniocally anti-immigration).

That does not mean, of course, that he was wrong about Iraq, although perhaps right for the wrong reasons.

Mark me man:
It also suits your choleric temperment, which has become something of a brand.

Has it now? Well if one is blogging one may as well be oneself, it is after all self-indulgence.

It is more amusing though in the comments sections of blogs where the regulars there are unfamiliar with your style of repartee.

I presume you were amused by the wounded reaction of re Arablish, or perhaps the Col P Lang site.

I rather enjoyed going after the idiot left again, banging away at the incompetent cretins in the Bush Administration

lester:

January 17th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

lunesbury- I think your off base on all of those. and there is no wrong reason to be anti war except maybe in 1776 in 1861

The Lounsbury - l'Aqoul:

January 17th, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Eh?

Would you are to write something understable?

Nonpartisan:

January 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Mark, thanks for linking my posts here — I’m developing a soft spot for you too! Methinks it’s the mutual fascination with historical thought — for instance, I’d much rather have people develop a fascination with Brooks Adams from my work than agree with my political point of view. 🙂

lester:

January 18th, 2007 at 7:19 pm

lounesbury- I meant regarding pat buchanans. he’s not the paranoid isolationist you believe him to be. and again, he was right and zenpunndit thomas psgvb barnett and most people linked on the topics here were wrong on iraq.

Anonymous:

January 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Analysis of an ancient war in modern times

“More than two thousand years ago, 10,000 Greek soldiers found themselves isolated among hundreds of thousands of enemies in Mesopotamia, not far from where American troops are now in Iraq. They had marched from Greece to take sides in a civil war they knew too little about.

Xenophon told his men the truth about their situation and led the 10,000 back to the sea and home to Greece, leaving an example of courage, leadership, skill and honor for generations yet to come.

The American forces in Iraq deserve a Xenophon.”
http://grhomeboy.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/analysis-of-an-ancient-war-in-modern-times/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophon

mark:

January 19th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Hi dimitar,

U.S. troops may deserve Xenophon but I am not holding my breath. I’ll settle for them not having a Nicias.

Anonymous:

January 21st, 2007 at 1:13 am

Mark, may I suggest you something interesting to listen to?

Thucydides: Ur-Historian of the Ur-War
http://www.radioopensource.org/thucydides-ur-historian-of-the-ur-war/