In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

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.

No, it isn't the same thing. If you don't pick any fights your
chances of getting your ass kicked go down. I don't hug bikers, but I
don't pick fights with 'em either. Nothing touchy-feely about it.

The fight has already been picked. It was picked centuries ago. W
didn't start the fight, yet you seem to be blaming him for it.

Nah, I'm only blaming him for tossing more fuel on the fire.

If you turn around during a biker bar fight, you get something smashed
over your head. It's not about not initiating a fight, it's about not
giving somene who is already fighting with you an opening.

OK, then explain to me how invading Iraq, killing lots and lots of
civilians, (and some insurgents who may or may not be local) and
installing a government that appears to be completely powerless is gonna
"not give someone an opening" to attack the US. Because I don't see it.
I mean, here we are over here, in North America, and there our army is,
on the other side of the planet. How does that make sense?
Oh well, at least you got off the hugging thing.

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".

So has there been any change in the rise in terrorism since Bush's
war?

Well, the US hasn't been attacked again, has it?

And I haven't had a cold since the last time I had one. Apparently
I'm invulnerable to disease, eh? In fact, I haven't died yet, so I
suppose I'm immortal too.
Or maybe your logic is flawed.

I mean, if what he's doing is effective then there should at least
be a slowdown in the increase, but that isn't what's happening.

Where was that followup to 9/11/01 that OBL threatened us with again?
I keep not seeing it.

Ask Tony Blair.

According to everyone who studies these things (except Bush's
administration) it's still rising, and it's rising more quickly.

That's an unsupportably weak generality.

OK, Mr. Hugbot. http://research.lifeboat.com/worldterror.htm

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.

Were they born evil?

Nature vs. nurture? Who knows. Centuries of hate has a habit of
changing cultures.

That's not an answer. "Who knows?" is a weak argument to support a
war. So is the corollary: "Just in case."

[...]

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.

Oh, well in that case, sure, we're doing something. But in terms of
laws, policies, and enforcement, we can't do anything.

Backpedal acknowledged.

Clarification. Call it a backpedal if you like, but is there any
further confusion you want ironed out?

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.

No, I stated pretty clearly that the war is a ****up because I'm
direct. You imply, infer, and just plain make **** up--like that
hugging thing.

I'm not implying it's a ****up, I'm stating outright that people on the
blue side of the aisle voted for it as well, so if you feel it's a
****up, you're welcome to blame _all_ the people who voted for it, not
just the red ones.

OK, I blame all the people who voted for it. And all of the goons
who voted for them and plan to keep on voting for them.
Now that we've got the blaming out of the way, how does all of this
blaming make Iraq not a ****up? A ****up which the republicans in the
White House are planning and leading.

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.

Then please explain why you bring up the vote for the war to defend
what I called "****ups" in Iraq.

Because your people also voted for it, so don't just blame my people.

I don't own or control them--they are not "mine." But to use your
language: "Your people" have the authority to end it, but they don't.
In fact it's plainly obvious at this point that "your people" lied their
asses off to get "my people" to consent to this cluster****. So, yeah,
I'll keep on blaming "your people" until they either fix what they broke
or lose power--whichever comes first.

It seemed as if you were trying to
say, basically, "Yeah? Well, the Democrats supported this ****up as
much as the Republicans did!" If that's not what you were trying to say
then, by all means, explain what you were trying to get at by bringing
up the congressional vote.

Yes, that _IS_ what I was saying. Democrats also voted for it. I can
roll out all the quotes from Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, and all those, if
you'd like, regarding OBL, SH, and so on. But, you've seen 'em already.

And you are correct, sir, I've seen 'em all. It's amazing how many
republicans in the workplace love their copy machines. Anyway, I know
now, and I knew then that Democrats also voted for the war. I was right
there, yelling at the TV when it happened on C-Span. But I just can't
seem to figure out how any of that is supposed to turn a ****up into a
nota****up.

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.

I'm not mad at Bush so much as appalled that anyone would think this
war is a good idea.

Take it up with your congresscritters then.

They're not the ones replying to me--you are. It seems odd that you
would butt into a conversation and then suggest that I leave.

But I suppose you've got a point--who am I to expect the president of
the US to pay any attention to half of his people?

Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the damn
country, not govern based on polls like the last guy did.

Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the
damn country somewhere other than into the ground.

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.

Then why did you call them gorillas.

gorilla. Not guerilla. FFS. It's a ****ing analogy. Some big guy
wants your stuff. Do you try to be friends, or do you whack 'em with a
big stick?

What "stuff" are the terrorists trying to take? AFAIR some want us
out of the Middle East, and a few want us all dead. But the vast
majority would probably be pretty satisfied with an end to bombings in
their cities, which I figure is an easily achievable goal. It would
save us money on bombs and funerals to boot.

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.

No ****. Why don't they? Wouldn't it stand to reason that some of
their hatred might come from years of us meddling with their governments?

If you substitute "years" with "centuries", "meddle" with "being
fundamentally incompatible with" and "government" to
"culture", then I'd agree.

Well, I wouldn't. I see nothing about them that makes them
fundamentally incompatible with us. Care to enlighten me?

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.

Eight years of Clinton killed fewer people than four years of
Bush--both on the battlefield and off.

Yes. Maybe he should have taken definative action instead of
pussy-footing around, and we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11/01.
Maybe. Weak responses (which you seem to see as good or something)
emboldened the terrorists.

Which "He" are you referring to in the above? And how does one go
about emboldening a group that's currently taking on the US military
with homemade bombs? How do you embolden a guy who's willing to take on
a mission that requires his own violent death? Seems like those folks
are riding the upper reaches of boldness already.

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.

No, people like me wouldn't. That's why I'm not. Those people who
are calling them puppets aren't like me.

OK, fair enough. Then why do you pretend the population who is helping
us, isn't?

What are you referring to?

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.

I never said we had to stop fighting when needed. But I don't think
Iraq was needed. Nor do I think our entire history of trying to
manipulate governments in the Middle East was needed.

Well then, let's get independant of their resources and they can just
kill each other instead of us. I'm fine with that.

Me too! Yay! Agreement!

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....?

It's a police state. You asked for a police state, so I named one.
Was that not what you wanted? I can only read what you've typed in; I
can't read your mind.

Relavance of Singapore to a US vs. mideast terrorist group being what,
exactly?

I saw no relevance between Singapore and the US--I just named off an
example since you wanted one. If that wasn't what you wanted, be more
specific with your questions.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/