On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:36:00 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:40:44 -0500, B.B.
.ru wrote:
Diplomacy. We're nice to the Canadians, so they don't try to hurt us.
There's also a bit of a military imbalance between the US and Canada
which might enter into it if they decided to be a problem, isn't there?
The idea that Canada tolerates us only out of fear of our military
strength is pretty silly. Especially now that our military is on the
other side of the planet, and a wee bit preoccupied.
Call it a wild idea, but I think if we'd stop blowing up people in
the Middle East, stop ****ing with their governments, and stop
threatening them with all kinds of trade sanctions the population at
large would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help
us find any actual terrorists that may stick around.
That's a _great_ idea. No, really. Let's all just give the terrorists
a big hug, and maybe they'll be nice to us. Yeah, that's it.
Where did I say hug? Be specific--don't just make up a bunch of ****.
It's the same thing. You're spouting the touchy-feely crap. They would
see that as weakness, not as a reason to stop hating us.
Or maybe, they'd see it as an act of cowardice and weakness, just like
they saw all of Clinton's useless responses to the increasing level of
terrorist actions during his tenure. Had he responded strongly, they
wouldn't have escalated.
Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on the
rise since Bush began "responding strongly"?
It's been increasing longer than Bush has been in office. Terrorism
escalated quite a bit during Clinton's years (do you need reminders?),
and he went from responding, to responding strongly, to responding quite
strongly, to "OK, now I'm really getting ****ed off guys, that's
enough". In other words, ineffectively. "Hey look, we can do whatever
we want and the most we get is a strenuous objection from the
weasel-in-chief".
From all that I've seen terrorism is more or less a byproduct of a
conflict. Trying to eliminate terrorism by warfare is akin to trying to
burn away ashes.
Give me a break. If you have a group of bad people, you don't turn
them into good people by leaving them alone, you make them stop being
bad people by making them into dead people.
Not true. And speaking of treason...how are you Anti-Bush and anti-war
types doing about the terrorists?
Nothing--we can't.
Really? Nothing at all?
Nothing I can think of. Care to offer a few ideas?
So you feel that the government not only is the only group that can do
anything about terrorism, but that they _should_ be the only ones to do
it? Well, I suppose that's consistant with the whole Democrat point of
view - "take care of it for us, and tell us what's good for us". Let's
see. You could keep your eyes open. Have situational awareness.
Notice when someone or something doesn't look right. Maybe you could
even, you know, volunteer as an emergency resopnder or something.
The republican nutjobs have pretty much total
control of the US and therefore are the source of all the current
massive ****ups unfolding all of the US and Iraq. Congrats.
Tell me again how that congressional vote worked, please, you know, the
one to take action in Iraq? I seem to recall that a few people on
the blue side of the aisle voted for it too... and do you need to see
the quotes again?
So are you implying that the Iraq war is a ****up?
You seem to have confused you with me.
But above you
said we needed to respond strongly. Could you explain that apparent
contradiction?
You put words into my mouth and then ask me to defend them? Sorry, but
I recognize your (failed) rhetorical technique.
But if you noticed the mass protests after that vote you'll see that
the democratic wing of congress diverged from its base pretty wildly in
that case.
So, you're mad at Bush. Got it. Wouldn't it be more helpful to direct
your anger at the people who you feel abandoned you? They're more
likely to listen than the people who already know you disagreed before
the vote.
happened ever since the beginning of history, and probably since far
before that. Traditionally, the easiest way to keep yourself from
getting killed is to just make friends with everyone around you.
Or, to have a bigger stick than the gorilla who is trying to steal your
stuff or kill you.
The terrorists are not gorillas.
So now you're not only putting words in my mouth, but telling me what
the ones I use mean? Wow.
They are people and think pretty
much the same way all other people think. What works for controlling
one group will likewise work for controlling terrorists.
You're delusional. They. Don't. ****ing. Like. Us.
Trying to pretend otherwise has only caused problems so far.
Riiiight, because leaving 'em alone and "protesting strongly" during
Clinton's years sure kept things from getting out of hand, didn't they.
Oh wait, they didn't.
Easy
and cheap and comes with a lot of fringe benefits.
Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that
they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive.
It won't stop them, and I allowed for that: "population at large
would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help us
find any actual terrorists that may stick around."
And then people like you would call them "puppets of the Bush regime" or
something. Yes, that's already happening.
OTOH, beating down everyone who might become a threat has never
worked for long. Eventually people get tired of it and fight back.
And yet, when we do that to the terrorists, you want us to stop so we
can have a group-hug.
You're the only one talking about hugging, bub.
The counter to "fighting" is "not fighting". If you just stop fighting
them, sorry, put the guitars away but that ain't gonna make 'em like us,
or stop killing us; that just gives them room to expand.
Even those who don't want to fight against you also won't want to help.
Terrorism breeds pretty quickly in that sort of environment. In the
end, people get killed anyway, the only difference is that their lives
sucked before they died in a police state.
And who do you feel lives in a police state, exactly?
Singapore, for one.
Relavance being....?
|