That may be a largely correct observation Stuart, but it is not one that is completely true. It also why a call to a higher ethic and all encompassing new idea/paradigm is necessary in order to “call out” and provide “a place to go” for those who actually do have contrarian reservations about our foreign policy. Don’t you think?

To John Rawson

That actually echos my own observations regarding agendas, except that conflict also occurs when those who are contrarian and also have misunderstandings about the actual philosophy and policies of the theory/aspect of reform they are posting about….persist in their critiques. It results inevitably in conflict and schism. On the other hand one who intends and actually does not critique, but rather to integrate and include even apparently opposing ideas/theories/aspects of reform is actually trying to find a more unifying way of proceeding. Inclusiveness, integration and cooperation are the signatures of objectivity. Insistence on the inclusion of misunderstandings and less integrated agendas and the resulting fragmentation however, betray at least a wisp of egotism.