@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
This leaves a member the option of tolerating purposely offensive ****
Ignoring
tolerating.
In fact, it's by
responding to him that you give him exactly what he wants. That you're rewarding him. Which is an odd thing to do for someone you disdain.
But if people will forgive my digression, your post is interesting at least in its illustration of how people's views on foreign policy are more often that not fundamentally the expressions of their character rather than any specific political conviction.
You see a bad guy, you wanna confront him and punch him, basically. Even though thats not necessarily the thing that will do the most good, or might well do more bad than good. And when pointed out that this is not in fact the best way to deal with the problem by rational standards in the case at hand, you see that as showing weakness, and rage at the cowardliness of it, basically.
There's some paraphrasing on my part there, of course, but this serves as surprisingly equal descriptions of your take on Synron now and your take on Iraq ca. 2003.