tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11767021.post114737741918431928..comments2009-04-16T13:46:11.291-07:00burttdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07978806237063461230noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11767021.post-70699317775950935192009-04-16T13:46:00.000-07:002009-04-16T13:46:00.000-07:00Do you blog somewhere else now Doug?Joelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06600452580513720840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11767021.post-1150643457651613252006-06-18T08:10:00.000-07:002006-06-18T08:10:00.000-07:00I've been meaning to comment on this post for a while.<BR/><BR/>This, however, is re: your "who started it" with iMonk over at BHT. You're right, in spades, of course--and being modest, at that.<BR/><BR/>It's when BHT folks acts this way, eager to self-flagellate (and projecting as "self" all of Christendom) that the harshest critiques of their thinking and expression come to mind. This is why I can't heartily reprehend the "he's squishy!" reaction to iMonk or the general BHT flavor, unfair as the occasions and manners often are. There is something both arrogant and flabby about this kind of thing. . . . <BR/><BR/>And I think "just war" could be elaborated to cover pre-emption. One would need to articulate something like the Bush Doctrine, and then announce what regimes were being scrutinized in this way, and if possible warn civilians (which can be done by inciting them against their leaders in a manner which includes warnings of what we'll do to them).<BR/><BR/>Almost all of which we're doing, right?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>PGEpgeppshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.com