Amen on that. "Elitist" is the republican code word for "uppity". And you know where they're going with that...Quote:
Originally Posted by beatmaker
Printable View
Amen on that. "Elitist" is the republican code word for "uppity". And you know where they're going with that...Quote:
Originally Posted by beatmaker
According to one source, radical Muslims represent 10 percent of all Muslims. Effective dialogue will help to isolate the radical faction, or at least neutralize some support of people who may lean that way. And I am including religious dialogue between Christian Muslims and Jews. The Koran like, like the Bible has many passages which speak against the taking of human life and the humane treatment of people. It also speaks of war and battle, because that is what the secular culture did a lot of at that time. So which ideas are emphasized has to do with choices which comes mostly from religious leadership down to individual people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoked
But the killing of innocent people, non combatants, serves to make more enemies from the 90 non radical faction. Those 10 percent are spread out in various nations, so you can’t shoot or bomb your way out of the problem. If Osama Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, his goal would have been for the US to strike out blindly at all Muslims, proving his view that the US hates all Muslims. Attacking Iraq was exactly the wrong thing to do, since they had nothing to do with 9/11.
It has been pointed out that giving radicals a legitimate political and economic opportunities, like real jobs has been the most effective way to combat radical movements. An example would be Hamas, in Palestine who are now negotiating a peace agreement with Israel. The more stake they have in the process, the more it is in their interest to suppress the military faction. Israel’s strategy of ‘targeted assassinations’ was not effective because it killed many innocent non combatants and just radicalized potential neutral people.
Still I’m not saying that force should never be used. I’m saying intelligent strategy means fighting ideas, with principles (ideas), and force with force. Intelligent strategy means courting allies and reducing enemies by dividing them from potential friends. Ideas are an important tool. This is even the subject of a chapter in the 9/11 report.
I wrote a song about peace. The first line goes: “A bomb can’t change a word of the Koran”. That is a variation of a passage from the Koran that I heard from a Muslim. That is saying what I said above fight ideas with ideas. Truth is truth, wherever you find it.
But speaking of the truth, I’m sure that there are people in the current Republican administration who understand this. The truth is that is really was about the control of oil. The plan was put forth before 9/11 by the “Project for a New American Century” group.
We are over in somebody elses country with guns, tanks, etc. for them it is a life and death issue. Though we virtually ignore it, innocent people have been killed. Isn't this more important than Barrack Obama saving $300 dollar a month on his mortgage?
Yodajazz, the important defense think-tank The Rand Corporation, which is hardly a dovish organization, agrees with you in a recent recommendation to the US government.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
More at http://www.nwotruth.com/us-should-re...gent-al-qaida/Quote:
August 1, 2008
Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group’s capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.
Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group’s attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.
In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase “war on terrorism,” researchers concluded.
“The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end,” said Seth Jones, the study’s lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “In most cases, military force isn’t the best instrument.”
The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end — 43 percent — was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.
The second most common way that terrorist groups end — 40 percent — was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said.
Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups, although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large, well-armed and well-organized, according to researchers. In a number of cases, the groups end because they become splintered, with members joining other groups or forming new factions. Terrorist groups achieved victory in only 10 percent of the cases studied.
Jones says the study has crucial implications for U.S. strategy in dealing with al Qaida and other terrorist groups. Since al Qaida’s goal is the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, a political solution or negotiated settlement with governments in the Middle East is highly unlikely. The terrorist organization also has made numerous enemies and does not enjoy the kind of mass support received by other organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, largely because al Qaida has not engaged in sponsoring any welfare services, medical clinics, or hospitals.
The study recommends the United States should adopt a two-front strategy: rely on policing and intelligence work to root out the terrorist leaders in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East, and involve military force — though not necessarily the U.S. military — when insurgencies are involved.
The United States also should avoid the use of the term, “war on terror,” and replace it with the term “counterterrorism.” Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using “war on terror,” and Jones said it’s more than a mere matter of semantics.
“The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use,” Jones said. “Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.”
Among the other findings, the study notes:
* Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups. Since 1968, approximately 62 percent of all terrorist groups have ended, while only 32 percent of religious terrorist groups have done so.
* No religious terrorist group has achieved victory since 1968.
* Size is an important predictor of a groups’ fate. Large groups of more than 10,000 members have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare when groups are smaller than 1,000 members.
* There is no statistical correlation between the duration of a terrorist group and ideological motivation, economic conditions, regime type or the breadth of terrorist goals.
* Terrorist groups that become involved in an insurgency do not end easily. Nearly 50 percent of the time they end with a negotiated settlement with the government, 25 percent of the time they achieved victory and 19 percent of the time, military groups defeated them.
* Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are much more likely to be left-wing or nationalistic, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.
“The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy and keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight,” Jones said.
The study, “How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida,” can be found at www.rand.org.
The report was prepared by the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center that does research for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands and other defense agencies.
and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-ko..._b_116107.html
and http://www.economist.com/world/inter...ry_id=11950796
and directly from The Rand Corporation http://wwwcgi.rand.org/pubs/monograp...G741-1.sum.pdf
Thanks also for your other rational and well-informed comments in this thread. I've been enjoying reading them.
Ahhh, poor Beatmaker... having trouble growing out of your repressed childhood? You would rather have everyone take government handouts than kicking their sorry ass out of the food stamps line and making something of their life?Quote:
Originally Posted by beatmaker
And, sadly, you equate elitism to net worth, while it sometimes is true, it is as often not true.
I just dont understand why people need all that money. They should share. Share everything because they are more capable and work hard. Everyone should have the same. To each according to his need... right beatmaker? And we'll do it on the backs of the Producers who have the vision to create companies and jobs and profit... the people capable of making money and providing wages for people to live, then we'll steal it from them because they have more than the workers, and well, that just isnt fare, now is it?
Tell me poor beatmaker... who will make the money to distribute when the Producers go on strike and stop working?
My contribution to this thread:
You like to spoon feed everyone here your own thoughts about our politics...Don't try and define others to win brownie points in the sophomoric debate here...you haven't a fucking clue what mine are. But let me tell everyone what they are so you don't FURTHER muddle up anyone else's opinion about me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Realgirls4me
I voted Clinton/Gore in 92' and 96'
Voted Dubya in 01'
Went Independent in 04' and didnt vote
And so far am Independent and will not be voting for Obama or Mccain because I believe both are HORRID choices with big money backing them in a fucked up two-party system thats media controlled and not in the interests of American values.
My core beliefs??
Gay Marraige as a State Decision
Obama position is Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry. (Oct 2004) Gay Rights? Enforce all hate crimes and anti-discrimination in hiring and elsewhere
Flat Tax for everyone and I'm not for re-distribution of wealth for bigger government nanny states
Iraq? Hand over Iraq in a few years time and have them repay us in oil money for our blood and sacrifice and get Osama wherever
Trade? Fair trade with Asia and fair tax of imports...against NAFTA and all forms of creating global trade that hurts American workers
PRO 2nd Amendment rights and pro-assault weapons ban
Abortion? No late term abortion or abortion used as birth control
Stem Cells? Use current latest technology (skin, teeth etc) but develop unused fetus when morally ok for clear advances in major diseases
Immigration? I want tighter control and fewer immigrants to protect from disease and radical influence. Plus i want all Immigrants to learn ENGLISH I want a Guest Worker program and all others to get in line
Affirmative Action? I want anonymous performance based criteria and the bar raised not lowered for admissions
Death Penalty? Against it except for the most egregious criminals and DNA should always be used
Marijuana? Decriminalize it
Energy? Develop Offshore, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, NG, Fuel cell, Clean coal, and incentives for major automakers to develop hybrid full line of vehicles. Tax gas guzzlers and other vehicles slightly more. KEEP off Strategic Oil REserve unlike Obama and stay out of ANWAR Reduce our consumption through efficiency, conservation, and innovation.
Health Care? Opening up health care to both private and government plans whichever you can afford, and for more access to Canadian pharmaceuticals and more competition, but not Socialized medicine or universal coverage at the cost of covering ILLEGAL aliens by hard working Americans.
Homeland Security? Feel Patriot act needs amending. NO Habeus Corpus for NON-AMerican captives but against degrading or humiliating tactics that put American values in a negative way
Those are some pretty bold statements. I mean that literally.
McCain is 72 with a history of cancer, You never know if one of those screenings will turn up positive. So she might as well be running for President.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkThanos
Here's what the newspaper media is saying about McCain's pick.
Quote:
The Denver Post:
“I served with Hillary Clinton. I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine. You, Sarah Palin, are no Hillary Clinton.” Sorry to steal Joe Biden’s thunder, but we didn’t want to wait for the vice presidential candidates’ debate to say the obvious. Yes, John McCain, who argues with a straight face that Barack Obama’s 12 years in the Illinois legislature and U.S. Senate aren’t enough to qualify him to run for president, has picked a running mate who just two years ago was serving as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 5,470. In short, the presumptive Republican nominee, an Old Soldier in all senses of that term, drafted the political equivalent of the Unknown Soldier as his co-pilot. McCain’s pick of Palin jettisons his attack that Obama isn’t ready to lead and looks more like a desperate “Hail Mary” campaign tactic aimed at female voters.
Quote:
Detroit News:
…Palin, 44, with less than two years as governor and no foreign policy experience, can’t be sold as ready to step into the presidency if called upon. Arizona Sen. McCain, if he wins, will be 72 when he takes office, and the question of succession is likely to be a concern for voters.
Quote:
Kansas City Star:
But as this newspaper noted earlier this week, the most important question in evaluating a vice-presidential pick is whether that person is prepared to step into the Oval Office. Palin, with no national political experience and only a couple years in the Alaska governor’s office, is a very tough sell for the Republicans on that score. McCain’s age — he turned 72 on Friday — certainly doesn’t help. The Republican presidential candidate has emphasized the importance of military and national security issues, and taken shots at Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama the Democratic presidential nominee for having only four years of experience in the U.S. Senate. Yet McCain now suggests that someone halfway through her first term as governor is “exactly who this country needs” only one step away from the presidency
Quote:
Tampa Bay Tribune:
John McCain can forget about trying to make a campaign issue out of Barack Obama’s relatively thin foreign policy resume. In an effort to blunt Obama’s post convention momentum, McCain made history Friday by choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, the first woman to be nominated for vice president by the GOP. It is a risky move that stunned even some party leaders who fear that voters will have trouble imagining the former beauty queen as commander in chief, if it should ever come to that. The 44-year-old Palin, a former small-town mayor serving her first term as governor, has no experience in foreign policy.
Quote:
Washington Post:
But the most important question Mr. McCain should have asked himself about Ms. Palin was not whether she could help him win the presidency. It was whether she is qualified and prepared to serve as president should anything prevent him from doing so. This would have been true for any presidential nominee, and it was especially crucial that Mr. McCain — who turns 72 today — get this choice right…In this regard, count us among the puzzled and the skeptical…Once the buzz over Ms. Palin’s nomination dies down, the hard questions about her will begin. The answers will reflect on her qualifications — and on Mr. McCain’s judgment as well.
Quote:
New York Times:
Governor Palin’s lack of experience, especially in national security and foreign affairs, raises immediate questions about how prepared she is to potentially succeed to the presidency. That really is the only criteria for judging a candidate for vice president.
Quote:
Los Angeles Times:
What happened to his insistence that a running mate be qualified to serve as commander in chief? …An even better example is George H.W. Bush’s choice of Dan Quayle in 1988. That selection, like McCain’s, was designed partly to placate restive Republican conservatives. Those are not persuasive precedents. In one respect, McCain is in even less of a position to gamble than were Mondale and Bush. His age makes it especially important that his running mate be prepared to assume the presidency at a moment’s notice.
Quote:
Boston Globe:
In picking a first-term governor with no foreign-policy record, the Republican presidential candidate undermined his own central themes - experience and national security - and exposed the deep fault lines within his campaign…But the pick is hard to square with what Republicans have been saying all week: that Obama is too green to be president. Because Obama has bared his soul in a bestselling memoir and his decisions have been under a microscope for the last four years, voters can assess his judgment. Palin, in contrast, has next to no track record. Her ticketmate would be the oldest first-term president ever and has had health troubles in the past. McCain, meanwhile, is struggling to accommodate Palin within the logic of his campaign, which up to now stressed an existential threat from Islamic fundamentalism.
Quote:
Miami Herald:
Political strategists say Clinton’s rank-and-file supporters will be tough for McCain and Palin to win. The ticket’s strong anti-abortion positions make them anathema to liberal Democrats concentrated in places such as South Florida…On Friday, she may have made her first official flip flop, saying that she opposed the so-called ”bridge to nowhere” that became a symbol of pork-barrel Washington spending. Yet in 2006, her spokesman told the Associated Press that she supported the project.
Quote:
Philadelphia Daily News:
Franklin & Marshall College pollster Terry Madonna said that Palin’s personal story is an asset but that he would describe McCain’s pick in three words. “Risky, risky and risky,” Madonna said. “We just don’t know how she’ll handle the next nine weeks of campaigning, dealing with all these complicated national and international issues, debating [Obama's running mate] Joe Biden, and having every word scrutinized by an aggressive press corps.” The greatest unanswered question is whether putting Palin on the ticket will bring many Clinton Democrats into the McCain column. The Daily News reached five women who were Clinton primary-election supporters in a March poll, and none said Palin’s candidacy would change their vote.
Quote:
Chicago Tribune:
John McCain has described national security, defense, the war in Iraq and the war on terror as “the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day.” So who did he choose for his running mate? Someone who has zero acquaintance with those issues. The first and last question to be asked about a potential vice president is: Is he or she prepared to take over immediately as president? Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden gave that matter the priority it deserves. The question is even more important for McCain because he’s 72 years old and has had serious health problems. The chances are considerably higher than usual that his vice president would have to step into the Oval Office without notice…this decision mocks McCain’s seriousness on the issues that are supposed to be his strength. It tells us that he puts his own political fortunes above the safety of the nation. McCain has done a lot of things for his country. He should have done one more and picked a running mate who makes a plausible commander-in-chief.
Quote:
New York Times (Gail Collins):
He was looking for someone who was well prepared to fight against international Islamic extremism, the transcendent issue of our time. And in the end he decided that in good conscience, he was not going to settle for anyone who had not been commander of a state national guard for at least a year and a half. He put down his foot!…I do feel kind of ticked off at the assumptions that the Republicans seem to be making about female voters…The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong.
Quote:
TIME (Amy Sullivan):
It appears Sarah Palin was picked not just for her appeal to women voters but also to please social conservatives. If so, this could be Harriet Miers redux. And that didn’t work out so well the first time.
Quote:
TIME (Mike Murphy):
McCain’s mighty and oft-swung Obama swatting hammer of experience has been instantly changed from steel to rubber. VP examination stakes are a little higher for McCain, will she pass the ready on Day One test with less than two years in a (small) statehouse? Former full Colonel in the Pat Buchanan brigades...
Quote:
ABC News (Jake Tapper - yes, THAT Jake Tapper!):
Palin doesn’t exactly scream “experience,” which is McCain’s main argument against Obama. For a decade she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which has a population of approximately 8,471, which the Obama campaign says is less than 1/20th the size of his former state senate district. Palin has been governor for two years. Some might argue that in terms of experience she makes Obama look like Robert Byrd. In July, Palin told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow that “as for that VP talk all the time, I tell ya, I still can’t answer that question until, until somebody answers for me ‘What it is exactly that the vice president does every day?”
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...-msm-opeds.phpQuote:
Chicago Tribune (Mark Silva):
When Obama was looking at Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia as a possible running mate, Karl Rove, the “architect” of President Bush’s election campaigns, dismissed his experience - a governor for three years and mayor of 103rd largest Richmond. We’re not sure where Wasilla ranks.
Heh, the political process has never grabbed my attention like this before. Then again, I'm still young. :p