On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:32:32 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
BB Wrote, but snipped attributions of:

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.

You just aid we picked the fight. Right up there, where it starts
the line with .

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.

Well, so far it seems to have worked, so I guess it doesn't matter if
you're "seeing it" or not.

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?

Are you pretending our _entire_ army is over there? Seriously?

Oh well, at least you got off the hugging thing.

And yet, you're still pretending that if we're just nice to 'em they'll
reciprocate by being nice to us. It's still dangerously naiive.

Do we know each other from a.g.d. by the way?

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.

You're extending my "Well, it hasn't been as bad as before" into "it's
perfect", which is a statement I haven't come close to making.

Or maybe your logic is flawed.

The flaw is in you taking my statements and distorting their meaning.

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.

I wasn't aware that he lives in this country.

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

Mr. Hugbot. I kinda like that.

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."

It doesn't matter if they were born evil or not. The reason is
irrelevant. The fact is, they want to kill us, and will do so given the
opportunity. If we show weakness (which you think is "kindness" or
whatever your words were), they'll take that opening. Just as they did
repeatedly when Clinton failed to respond positively following the
incidents working up to 9/11/01.

[...]

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?

Nope, I understand the nature of the "Oh, you meant _anything_, I meant
_anything_" comment, thank you.

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.

So would that include yourself? How did your representatives vote? You
do know, I assume?

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.

Well, let's see. Their woodchipper-people-shredding dictator and his
sons are out of power and/or dead, the infrastructure is being rebuilt,
most of the country is safe. Hm, maybe there's more going on over there
that's good, that we're not hearing much about. A couple friends of
mine have come back from over there, and tell me that it's a different
country than the press shows. Lots of good progress, and they're both
****ed that the press isn't giving them any mention for the progress.

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.

They were working on the same intel as "my people".

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****.

Gunner _JUST_ quoted Kerry, Clinton, Albright, and all those folks
regarding Iraq. Do I need to dig 'em out, or can we stipulate that
"your people" also agreed that he had the stuff and was a danger? Oh,
and those quotes predate the W administration. So much for _that_ plan.

So, yeah,
I'll keep on blaming "your people" until they either fix what they broke
or lose power--whichever comes first.

Both sides voted for it, but you blame the other side. Got it.

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.

OK, evasion noted. What about those quotes, specifically?

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 you're happy to criticize, even though you have nothing constructive
to contribute. Got it.

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.

Butt into? Bite me. What have your congresscritters responded to you
with? You _have_ contacted them, right? Mine are pretty damn
responsive, even though I disagree with 1.5 of the 3 of them.

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.

My point is that we voted for someone based on their pre-election
statements. Changing policy at the whim of polls is _not_ what they're
elected to do. Clinton didn't care; he just bounced around on whatever
topics he thought would increase his poll numbers.

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.

You're being intentionally dense. If someone threatens you, the best
way to deal with that threat is to provide an effective defense, not as
you'd suggest, to try to reason with them.

I bet you're the type that, if faced with a mugger, would rather "give
the man your wallet and hope he doesn't hurt you much", rather than to
arm yourself with a legally concealed weapon. Am I wrong?

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?

If you haven't studied history, I'm not going to try to fix that here.
Sorry, but if you have no understanding of what's happened in the last
thousand years or so, that might explain why you think you can reason
with those people. Yes, I said "those people".

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?

Context makes it quite obvious that "He" applies to Clinton. Need I
diagram the sentences for you?

And how does one go
about emboldening a group that's currently taking on the US military
with homemade bombs?

By showing weakness. Do pay attention.

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.

Apparently they are not currently bold enough to attack the US on US
soil again.

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?

See what I mean?

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!

Far as I'm concerned, we should tell 'em "Look. We helped SH, he got
out of hand, and we came in and took him out. We gave you a reasonably
good guy this time. Keep his ass in line, or we'll wander through
_again_ with our forces, take _him_ out, and repeat as needed. Get your
**** together and we won't have to keep doing this, but if the next guy
makes noises like this last guy, we're taking him out. Now behave."

Hopefully that makes my point of view clear. Given that it's not
going to happen any time soon, the next best thing is to whack the
troublemakers hard and repeatedly until they either change (ha!) or die.
The alternative is to not take them out, and they'll take us out.