Charles Martel said:
It's a carrot actually. Use it for negotiation, all of my olive branches have thorns and I didn't want you to get pricked.
I keep the carrot in my back pocket for use in debate and banter with the opposite political persuasion. My other pocket has a big stick in it and when the carrot fails. I just bring the stick out. The carrot/stick diplomacy my preference.
Ok. I've got my shilelegh as back up.
Charles Martel said:
Nearly lost his second election by sticking to those values, you're not accurate...not even close here.
And he learned from it and changed. Without an inept Dem candidate he would have lost.
Charles Martel said:
He launched Rumsfeld after the 2006 election. And chose the surge strategy amongst many other alternatives he was given, many many many...including the ENTIRE LEFT, both leaders in Congress, and the majority of the American People didn't want to surge in Iraq...remember? And Obama is continuing Bush's exact strategy in Iraq, this is true, remember, he ran on a campaign of "change", not continuing Bush policy. Plato Sir, you're debating with someone here as up on facts as you, stop pretending otherwise...or I'll take the carrot back.
Not so. I seem to be debating with someone who knows his facts better. When I look into it, it seems that Bush gave into other pressure, not least a drubbing in the 2006 elections:
Wikipedia said:
In an unprecedented move in modern U.S. history,[60] eight retired generals and admirals called for Rumsfeld to resign in early 2006 in what was called the "Generals Revolt," accusing him of "abysmal" military planning and lack of strategic competence
As I said, maybe the Right should look at the military leadership, including the instructions given to US Marines (which you are continuing to ignore).
Charles Martel said:
No question about it, but...political agendas are a reality, we have civilian leadership of the military in this country. The leader of the Party(Obama or Bush or Kennedy or Nixon), is also Commander in Chief. It's up to that man to know the difference between politics and reality. And Bush...to his own political peril...made the proper decisions for Iraq. Remember, this new current CiC would have already been out of Iraq leaving God knows what for a reality.
Not exactly, although I always agreed with Bush about the war. But maybe with hindsight (no WMD) it would have been better to have finished in Afghanistan fisrt. When it comes to courage, Bush tapped into an understandable jingoism in America following 911. Obama was more cool headed and it has to be said, more courageous. Had the liberation of Iraq gone like many of us who supported the war hoped (including Bush with his famous victory speech), Obama would have been finished for good.
Charles Martel said:
You do that and please keep in mind my previous suggestion. Debate me as if I'm your equal, you'll find me less "difficult."
I debate what you write. As an individual I am sure we could sink a beer together.
Charles Martel said:
does pointing out the fact that ALL of these terror attacks have as a common denominator a devout Muslim carry any weight at all then? Did you...Plato...have any doubt who was responsible for the Christmas attempted bombing of an American airliner? Did you need to wait for religious affiliation? 23 years old......a Nigerian.....coming from Yemen......paying in cash......did you have to wait for al-Qaeda to take credit.
No...you knew who it was right off. That profiling...or experience?
The primary common denominator is they were ALL devout Muslims...now...is it shocking I'd take a look at such a common denominator? Would it be demonizing if I did? Would it be remiss if I didn't?
This common denominator thing betrays a serious lack of understanding of basic mathematics. Yes 40/80 is the same as 20/40, but 40 is not the common denominator, 2 is. By your reasoning the common denominator could be that they are all men.
It is an argument that demonizes muslims that you put forward, without a doubt. It is utter trash. Sorry if that gets your stick twitching. I have said that I am not against profiling. I just think it should be done by cool heads, who are unmotivated by religious hatred, and who remember that predictability in how you act is a weakness to a cunning and "nimble" enemy. Certainly a response to a bombing by blaming a lack of profiling is a partial and inadequate response in any books and underlines a different agenda from that of profiling per se: an agenda of revenge and hostility towards 1.2 billion people.
What is the detailed proposal? That people whose dads have shopped them to the CIA and who have been refused entry to the UK for a dubious immigration application, should be profiled? Well I'm not against that. Or is it for all muslims to be treated separately.
Let's take that last one because funnily enough the "profile all the muslims" people never go into that (usually it is just an excuse to vent hatred at a group they don't understand due to their inability to come up with any sensible agenda for dealing with the situation).
How do you tell who's a mooslem? Well it seems like you have two choices:
1. Make everyone carry an ID card with their religion certified by a minister (not sure how you'd go about it with the atheists) OR
2. Just search all the black people
Except you'd have to search people who might be from Xinjiang or the Balkans too, so....
3. Just search everyone except white anglo saxon protestants with American passports
Is that not it? Why are you so vague at saying how it is then?
Of course your whole "common denominator" argument is nothing less than bollocks.
Firstly, most muslims, including the one I cited as a reformer, would see the terrorists as apostate, or anti-muslim. And they say so. So they don't see them as devout muslims at all, but as crazed heretics.
Secondly, many terrorists (such as the IRA) were devout Christians, according to themselves, but this diddn't stop them from blowing children to pieces in shopping malls. But some stupid people, many in America, were foolish and evil enough to support them. The same goes for protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. Their justification was often biblical. But this does not implicate Christianity as a whole.
Thirdly your approach demonizes all muslims by equating devoutness in their religion with murder. As has been pointed out only a tiny fraction of muslims engage in this, otherwise the whole global system of trade and international relations would collapse. Igniting a global civil war between muslims and Christians is an explicit Al Q aim. Why do you collaborate with them in this?
This episode, it is now clear, is about a failure of intelligance on our part. That doesn't mean its our fault (the fault is always with the murderers) but it doea mean we have to get better. Demonizing muslims in the way that you do (and the US Marines do not) will lead to less intelligence and therefore less security.
The key is to use hard and soft power appropriately. The stick needs to be used with the hardened terrorists (which is why I support the military campaigns) but the carrot is the superiority of our values, not least our tolerance, should be the basis of our soft power. This will reduce the streams in which the terrorists swim (per the US Marines intructions) and isolate the problem fanatics. It's not an either or but an understanding of counter insurgency warfare, which blends force with other measures in order to prevail. Gates and rice did much better than Bush and Rumsfeld in this, and Obama is continuing.
Just look at Iran. The demonstrators march claiming the authority of Shi'ite islam over the traitorous leadership. That the grandson of the Prophet was murdered by an upstart. This is a slogan of tremendous religious power that works in favour of liberalizing Iran. The potential for a reformation of Shi'ite islam in Iran is enormous, particularly towards an accommodation with liberal democracy and modernity. Demonizing muslims, by claiming a correlation between devout islam and terrorism just weakens this. What do all the bombers have in commmon? That they stand opposed to the devout muslims who demonstrate in Iran against the regime.
You talk as if religion is some sort of democratic centralist communist thing, where there are monolithic interpretations of scripture and all speak with one voice. Like a party, all voicing the same line and defending each other loyally. This is as absurd for islam as it is for Christianity. Religions are catholic, diverse, subjective and riven with schism and emnity. To simplify islam like this is not only blockheaded, but also self destructive.
But I'm sure you know all that, what with being my equal and all that. So why do you post such drivel?