Thank you. Cole sometimes drives me up a tree. His analysis on this issue is so tilted that it indicates a deep lack of critical faculties in his personality.
I've blogged extensively on the Pope's remarks today. Each time I come away with a different impression. I, at least, have tried to think about his comments and react in a positive (not necessarily affirmative) manner.
Ratzinger will not retract these remarks. He will not disavow that speech. It is steeped in Catholic teaching, beyond the rather simplistic Google ability of al Cole.Comment Posted By Chris On 18.09.2006 @ 21:54
It seems as though this was one remark in a lengthy, deliberate argument that was taken as the thesis. I do not believe your speculation is founded on anything more than a desire (a well founded desire) to see someone engage the radicalized Islamists on moral and religious terms.
This is a very, very academic speech. Manuel II's reference most likely is focused on his use of "logos", as it appears in both the introduction and the conclusion. I think the comments on "evil" were an indication of his forceful feelings on the subject, as he was under siege. The Pope called the comments "brusque" and "forceful" and noted the siege. That is, if anything, an attempt to be honest with Manuel II's words and to downplay their combative nature.
This was not the rallying cry you want to see it as.Comment Posted By Chris On 18.09.2006 @ 13:50
I feel bad for this academic Pope. Note how all lament the lack of Rock Star John Paul II, yet neglect that this Pope was JP IIs doctrinal authority/enforcer.
For the speech in English, go to this Holy URL:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.htmlComment Posted By Chris On 16.09.2006 @ 14:55
The Dems have this tactic of pulling back when the GOP is bickering (Harriet Myers). It's an interesting tactic. I can't fault them on the merits. But, they lose initiative.Comment Posted By Chris On 15.09.2006 @ 12:35
Rick, thanks for your response. The Kurdistan option was advanced by Galbraith.
As for my comments on retention, they are a guess. Just as this was a guess:
"These are extremely troubling figures, especially boot camp attrition and the lowering of educational standards. Part of this is surely the result of a roaring economy as the military has to compete with private industry for soldiers to fill the ranks."
Boot camp is easier today than at any point in the all volunteer army.
But, let's just say I know people factoring in their deployment schedules with IRR.
I'd rather we dig down deep or up and leave. The present course is absolutely the worst possible direction.Comment Posted By Chris On 14.09.2006 @ 15:07
Recomend: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301575.htmlComment Posted By Chris On 14.09.2006 @ 12:07
I believe two reasons retention is so high are: 1.) very high bonuses and 2.) you'll get called from IRR and have to fight anyway.
Now, why the tinge of doubt on the equipment issues? Murtha has pointed that out for some time now. Others before him.
If you want a bigger footprint, you need a draft. To ramp up that equipment short-fall, you need to increase government spending, or cut programs like Star Wars II. (The Empire Stikes Back)
Now, why do you think it's the Stryker Brigade (Vehicles) called on for extended duty. Guess what? They are going back in May. They should have returned to Alaska in August. Now they will be there till January. Then they go back in May. That's 3 months vacation! Why them? Brand.New.Trucks. The old National Guard trucks that they are using to train (and in Iraq) are collapsing in a month.
If those ideas are unsavory, you need to redeploy over the horizon -- like in Kurdistan.
So, what do you do?Comment Posted By Chris On 14.09.2006 @ 11:50
Well said, OregonMuse. I don't care either. This is a detail in the war, not a pressing issue. I don't care if it's used against us, because some other issue will supplant it. We detained these guys for some reason at the time, and to let them go is simply dangerous. I'm sorry that the rights of some possible innocent people are being violated, but Islamic radicalism is snuffing out the rights and the lives of thousands upon thousands every day.
Rick, you yourself have argued for more commitment to winning. If we're not willing to besmirch our consciences a little in order to defeat a fanatical and tyrannical enemy that wishes to obliterate our culture and its heritage, then we will lose. Period.Comment Posted By Chris On 4.09.2006 @ 08:12
After reading brad's irrefutable chain of logic regarding the falsity of Mr. Moran's analysis, I hereby repent of and recant all my conservative views and ideologies.
Unfortunately, I am unable to stand upright and breathe at the same time.Comment Posted By Chris On 2.09.2006 @ 09:10
Look, all this talk of people continuously condemning outrageous speech is, frankly, tiresome. Highlight it, parodize it, fisk it, complain about it, even support it if you wish. I don't see why every utterance by anyone with a keyboard has to be upheld or trounced, no matter whether one agrees with the speaker on most issues or not.
In the words of the immortal classic "Major League" - "Who gives a shit? It's gone."Comment Posted By Chris On 31.08.2006 @ 15:17