On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:32:51 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

I did some mass snipping to whittle this exchange to a more
reasonable size. I'm honestly trying to keep anything that's important,
but I apologize in advance if I've screwed up.

No problem.

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 .

Can you not separate an analogy from the concept it's trying to
illustrate?
But I can comfortable say that Bush did pick the fight in Iraq.

Bush's thinking, which he explained with his usual clearness and
elocutification (heh), was pretty well put in his 2002 state of the
union address. Went something like this:

"Well, that was bad (9/11). It'd be even worse if these guys get
together with Saddam Hussein, because we know he has used WMD in the
past, and that could get really ugly. We need to stop that from
happening".

So, if you want to say he "picked the fight", you're partially right.
SH had been violating UN resolution after resolution, stonewalling the
inspectors, and all that stuff he agreed not to do. We know he had WMD,
because, well, we sold it to him, and he didn't properly account for the
alleged destruction of it. Bush's attacks were proactive rather than
reactive, but I'd rather that prevention be done than retribution after
it's too late.

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.

Define "work" as you're applying it here. I see a whole lot of dead
people on both sides, and a huge monetary expense to the US. In
exchange for, as you said, not a perfect guarantee the US won't be
attacked again.

And yet, the US hasn't been attacked again, certainly not with AQ and
SH's WMDs, so that which was a real risk has been prevented.

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?

No, but enough of it to make any major response over here impossible.

Bah.

Besides people, equipment is deployed over in Iraq, including hardware
that had been mothballed. We don't even have a good "plan C" if
something goes ape**** over here.

I think you'd be surprised.

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.

Some will, some won't. People tend to give as good as they get--be
mean to people, and they'll be mean back. Be nice to people and they'll
be nice back. Not 100%, but pretty high.

Not even close. The time we left SH alone, he used to build back up his
military. Leave 'em alone doesn't work when they keep building up
during the time we're doing it. Percentages aside, specifics are more
important.

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

Yup. (:

Thought so. How's that madhouse these days?

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.

I'm not restricting the conversation to the US alone. My complaint
is with Bush's war on terror, which is supposedly worldwide.

And yet, it's the US's money. The US is seeing benefits from it, I
feel.

To quote
me: "Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on
the rise since Bush began 'responding strongly'?" Message ID is
if you'd
like to check the context of that remark.

Nah, no point.

What I'm trying to get at is that you keep falling back on the "we
haven't been attacked again" defense of this war. First, correlation
isn't causation.

Of course not. I've never said it did. It's impossible to prove the
negative - prove to me there are no WMD in Iraq, for instance.

Second, what defense will you use if we do get
attacked over here? If your only justification for this war is that we
haven't been attacked yet, then as soon as we do get attacked again your
entire justification is gone.

Um, no, I think the obvious would be "Wow, that sucked, just imagine
what would have happened if we hadn't knocked SH out of power and he'd
given AQ some nasties at that time".

At that point I suppose you could
redefine it as "It isn't as bad this time" or "it took X years for it to
happen again,"

There ya go.

but those are ****-poor results for $1.25billion a week,
plus thousands of casualties. So I would like to know if you've got any
other justification for this activity in Iraq?

It seems to be working so far, and the press isn't reporting the good
parts; just the newsworthy parts. Nobody gets ratings from showing the
new water processing plants, or power distribution network; the press
wants to show blood.

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

Mr. Hugbot. I kinda like that.

Go websearch for "Perry Bible Fellowship." That's where I got the
name from. Funny as hell.

OK, I'll check it out.

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.

Well, yeah, the reason they hate us does matter. They didn't just
jump off a spaceship one day--something here on Earth turned some people
into terrorists. Until we fix that something it's highly unlikely we'll
be able to kill enough terrorists to eliminate terrorism. A dripping
faucet can fill the biggest bucket, as one fortune cookie told me.

So, we should let the fire spread while we remove the fuel from around
it? That'd be OK if it was a contained fire. Gotta contain the fire
first before you start doing cleanup. And, I contend that rebuilding
the infrastructure in Iraq, similar to what we helped with in Japan,
might be able to turn an enemy into a trading partner and ally given
time.

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.

Cool, glad to hear it. But it seems the attacks and bombings in Iraq
are increasing instead of decreasing, which is not a positive trend.

Could be seen as a sign of "last-ditch" effort. Hard to know based on
what we're told.

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".

But now they have all-new intel that tells them that the old intel
was utter horse ****, but they don't change their plans one bit. How is
that acceptable?

Even Kerry admitted that now that we're in it, we're in it until we're
done and it's going to take many years.

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.

Gunner's in my killfile, so I don't see anything he posts anymore.

Ah, so here's a link:
http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html

Anyway, the vote itself does not predate the W administration. That
vote would be the point at which "my people" consented.

Well, check the names and dates. Claiming that this was strictly a
republican claim is disingenuous and cheapens your argument.

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.

Yeah, because one side gives orders to the military. Orders that I
think are completely counterproductive and stupid. The other side only
gets to bitch about it.

Read the quotes.

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?

Ya know, I'll bet that Gunner's list you referred to is almost a
carbon copy of the lists I've been accosted with at work.

Dunno, this one looks pretty well researched.

And what is this evasion you speak of.

That your people said he had 'em, my people said he had 'em, both sides
voted to go to war, and you're only blaming my people.

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.

Huh? Do you not remember what you called "hugging" earlier?

Sorry, that was a cheap shot, and I don't remember what my point was
there.

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.

Amazing. It must be the bane of being a liberal in Texas. I only
get the standard: "Thank you for your comments. The representative's
views on this issue a bla bla bla. Please send a check."

Yeah, that'd be our Herb Kohl. Useless even as compost. Feingold, even
though I disagree with his reasons, votes the way I would about half the
time. Sensenbrenner seems like a reasonable person and I almost always
agree with his voting record.

This is
the same state, after all, that gave us the chicken **** president who
screens his audiences because he fears hecklers.

Oh, come on. You think Clinton and every other president didn't do the
same thing?

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.

Clinton is not in office. Clinton no longer has any control over
what happens. Therefore Clinton has basically jack **** to do with
anything going on in Iraq, regardless of what his position is, was, or
was supposed to be.

I'm setting context.

Can you respond without invoking "Clinton?"

Well, given that his wife is running next time, probably not. Oh look,
I just did.

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.

So who would you say is being the bully in Iraq?

SH. He's out now, so once we get things stabilized there, we'll get
out. Personally, I'd prefer we get out sooner, give 'em notice to keep
the new guy in line or we'll come back again.

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?

Yup, you're wrong. The last guy that tried to mug me left with a
broken elbow, broken wrist, and a few missing teeth. I still have his
knife.

Well, I'll give you credit there then. Not everyone is able to tank
through a situation like that, though. Sometimes the bad guy needs to
be deterred.

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?

Yes, get to it.

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.

So what would be the next level of "bold" after throwing grenades at
an oncoming tank?

Attacking our country.

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.

Yeah, they're being less bold by attacking hardened military targets
in the middle of a ****ing war zone. 'Cause if I had the option: fight
with trained, armed, and ****ed-off marines vs. evade mall security,
it's the marines every time!

They're busy over there. Better that than them being busy over here.

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.

Umm, I'm really not at all convinced Saddam was any danger to us in
any realistic way. Maybe a pain in the ass, but certainly no danger.

Well, we knew he didn't like us. We knew he _had_ WMD. We also knew
that AQ didn't like us, and _wanted_ WMD. Keeping the two from getting
together is, in my opinion, a valid goal.

OTOH, the guys who have been successfully killing our soldiers are
extremely dangerous, and they weren't around before this war. As far as
I'm concerned none of this should have happened at all.

They weren't around?

Now that it has happened, maybe your idea would be best, but what
Bush is doing right now is a mistake. And we all get to pay for it.

I'm not saying I agree with all (or even much) of what has happened, but
now that we're in the soup, we have to finish it out right or it'll be
even worse.