Dear Community,

I heard an interesting topical discussion on the Art of War, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Originally titled "Dell'arte Della Guerra" in the original Italian, it espoused the theorem of Dividing a Nation in order to conquer it, a tactic used very effectively by the little island of Great Britain to maintain control of a much more powerful India for several decades.

Britain pushed the Indian Caste system into the forefront of their culture, then openly fed the dissent already between tribes, and in doing so continued to keep the culture segmented into different groups. Instead of a solid like-minded army of resistance, Britain effectively turned India into a multitude of internal struggles that kept their attention instead of those pesky little invaders.

This tactic is currently being used against the United States. Not only is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) effectively attacking different segments of the American Population, they have efficiently turned the Democratic's love of appeasement into a weapon it can use against a majority of Americans, allowing the Council to cry 'racism' and get instant supporters anytime someone correctly identifies the threat of Radical Islam against this nation.

They have readily used an already segmented political system to further drive this Nation apart. The cohesiveness we felt soon after Sept. 11th, 2001 is gone, replaced by blind hatred for each other because of a difference of strategy. Unless we can come together as a Nation, the 'little island' of Islam will conquer the United States.

I have also seen the same thing here on Fire Society. Whether it was the Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, or any other candidate's supporters, there have been a few who have fed the dissonance to further drive us apart.

Even as these members have left, or been removed, their long-lasting effects have continued to linger. The emotionally driven comments spewed forth by these few into the heart of the electronic ether that composes Fire Society powered our anger toward anyone who disagreed with us.

Now, anytime someone has a 'difference of strategy" we immediately go into a defensive mode, crying foul because they would deign to disagree. However disagreement is life, it is growth, it is the fuel that powers us to think. Without disagreement, we have no need to perfect what we believe in order to more efficiently communicate that idea, so the next time we try to 'convert' someone to our idea we can do so with ready conviction born of careful thought.

We are allowed to disagree. It is healthy to debate, to really work to understand our way of thinking. The next time someone disagrees with you, before you respond, please ask yourself a few questions.

• What do I believe?
• Why do I believe it to be right?
• How can I effectively communicate this to the poster?

Asking ourselves these questions, allows us to not only get better results from our debates, it allows us to do so while educating others, instead of attacking them.

Thank You,
Sean Ivy
Fire Society Editor