You could never approach the clarity and patriotism that Misha displays, and your common sense multiplied a thousand fold is not equal to a smidgen of that possessed by The Emperor.

Furthermore you are simply NOT entertaining in the least in your writing.

What is entertaining however is seeing how many times you will respond.

meaty developing a style akin to that of the unique and entertaining style of The Emperor himself?

No. Unlike murder advocate Misha, I am capable of evaluating an argument on its moral dimension. This is a skill that Misha has never possessed, and never will.

...his style will never approach that of Misha.

I should hope not. The mindless hurling of lies and epithets is not a style that any thinking person would want to emulate.

Hardly…..he may attempt to become a shallow copy, but his style will never approach that of Misha.

Touche.

You are correct. You did not make that statement at all. I made that assumption (and we all know what assuming does) because you just pretty much said that it was an example of “sheer moral vacuity” and that it was an “half-assed excuse” to go to war in Iraq. That in a piece that vaunts a top-ten list for being conservative.

Perhaps it was more of an anti-war diatribe mixed in with your own version of Misha’s eviscerations of other’s blog entries, I see a similar style developing.

Oh, and thanks for pulling my comments out of the spam filter…

Let us speak of straw men, Duncan. At what point in my post did I claim that “Mr. Higgin’s statement that conservatives believe in defending this country is somehow wrong”?

That being said, war is far too often a necessary evil. Unfortunately there are enemies that can’t be appeased with flowery language and see it only as weakness. Fighting a war is sometimes necessary. It should never be considered or entered into lightly.

And it is fun to watch the Dhimmicratic Party falling all over themselves trying to see who can look the toughest against terror, even making statements that have enraged an ally a la Obama. I read Mr. Higgins post, and that specific statement in particular, and I can’t find any disagreement with it. When it becomes obvious that your enemy is using the negotiating table to by time to either weasel out of prior agreements, or to set up another attack, then the time for negotiating has elapsed. Instead of handwringing and lamenting on how evil we are for fighting some “poor, misunderstood people”, the time comes to stop staring at navels and start working on the unconditional surrender.

Back to your post meaty,

I didn’t read in Mr. Higgin’s post that he was specifically talking about Iraq. Sure, I’d include it in the entire War on Terror conflict we are engaged in, but you somehow take that argument, and lo and behold, do what you do best, set up a strawman argument about how bad war is (which it is) and then claim that Mr. Higgin’s statement that conservatives believe in defending this country is somehow wrong? He never mentions Iraq, nor does he say war is a great time for all. His point was that it would be more interesting if we didn’t capitulate to every third world despot or enemy that attacks and challenges us on the battlefield.

The casualties in this conflict are lower than just about any comparable conflict before. Using your rationale that war is bad, then perhaps we should not have fought the American Revolution. After all, we suffered 8000 dead in that conflict.