Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> So, someone comes to your house uninvited, and you ask them to leave.  
> Instead, they invite 20 friends.  Tell me you're not gonna get pissed off 
> about that.

  How about: You threaten to kill them and their families, and they call
the police.

  It's not always that simple.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:19:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> So, someone comes to your house uninvited, and you ask them to leave.
>> Instead, they invite 20 friends.  Tell me you're not gonna get pissed
>> off about that.
> 
>   How about: You threaten to kill them and their families, and they call
> the police.

So the US is the world police?

>   It's not always that simple.

It's only as complicated as we make it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Why would the people I work for bother spending money on the guy who 
>>> swaps the backup tapes?
>>
>>   And who browses the internet at work hours? ;)
> 
> Hey, I gotta check the Internet link is still working. ;-)

I found this hilarious:

http://readatwork.com/

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sure there are other factors, but the major beef that Bin Laden and 
> others has is that unbelievers are in their holy land.  Our solution to 
> that was to put MORE unbelievers in their land.

Yeah. And the obviously correct way to get our military *out* of their 
land was to start attacking our *own* country. Good move, that. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:57:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sure there are other factors, but the major beef that Bin Laden and
>> others has is that unbelievers are in their holy land.  Our solution to
>> that was to put MORE unbelievers in their land.
> 
> Yeah. And the obviously correct way to get our military *out* of their
> land was to start attacking our *own* country. Good move, that. ;-)

Well, it wasn't Iraq who attacked us on 9/11, was it?

I don't seem to recall that 9/11 was the first attempt to get us out of 
their land.  Some people take the approach "I'll *show* you what it's 
like" after other means fail.

I absolutely don't agree with their tactics, but I can understand why 
they do what they do.  This isn't something that happened overnight; even 
when Bin Laden was on "our side" fighting in Afghanistan, he was angry 
about the "US occupation" (ie, established military bases) in Saudi 
Arabia.

If you were a believer in God (and I know you're not from earlier 
discussions), if someone came in and pissed all over your church and 
disrespected your religion, you'd probably be upset about it as well.  If 
after asking a hundred times that they leave they didn't, you might feel 
it was time to take more extreme action to get your point across.

Most people have a very hard time stepping into someone else's shoes in 
order to look at a situation and understand it from a different point of 
view.  I can't count the number of conversations I've had with people 
over the years to try to get them to see something they disagree with 
from my (contrary) point of view:

"Imagine that you didn't believe in Christ"
"But I do!"
"Yeah, but imagine if you didn't!"  
"Why on earth would I do that?"
"To see a different point of view"
"But that point of view is WRONG"
"And you know that how?"
"Because it's not MY point of view"
etc.

As a nation, the US is extremely guilty of failing to look at situations 
from other points of view, even to understand them.  Understanding 
doesn't mean agreement.  I think many people, though, are afraid of 
understanding a different perspective - maybe they fear agreeing with it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> I found this hilarious:
> 
> http://readatwork.com/

...and people say *I* have too much free time! ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, it wasn't Iraq who attacked us on 9/11, was it?

No.

> I don't seem to recall that 9/11 was the first attempt to get us out of 
> their land.  

Me neither.

Note that wasn't much of a value judgement. I'm not (at this moment) 
saying the US was right or wrong. I'm just saying that, historically 
speaking, the best way to reduce the US's military presence in your 
country has not been to start a war with the US. Gee, Bullwinkle, that 
trick *never* works.

I'll grant you if you've run out of options and you think God is on your 
side, it might seem more reasonable.

> "Imagine that you didn't believe in Christ"
> "But I do!"
> "Yeah, but imagine if you didn't!"  
> "Why on earth would I do that?"
> "To see a different point of view"
> "But that point of view is WRONG"
> "And you know that how?"
> "Because it's not MY point of view"
> etc.

Heh. BTDTGTTS.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:14:08 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, it wasn't Iraq who attacked us on 9/11, was it?
> 
> No.

But taking troops into Iraq was seen as an invasion of holy lands.  So we 
repeat the cycle - they want us out, we become more entrenched in the 
region.  I don't see how that's supposed to break the cycle.  You can't 
*kill* an idea, but "we" (the US, or at least the administration) seems 
to think we can bomb the terrorists into submission.  That's a flawed 
premise.

I really want to get a copy of McClellan's book, it looks like a 
fascinating read.

>> I don't seem to recall that 9/11 was the first attempt to get us out of
>> their land.
> 
> Me neither.
> 
> Note that wasn't much of a value judgement. I'm not (at this moment)
> saying the US was right or wrong. I'm just saying that, historically
> speaking, the best way to reduce the US's military presence in your
> country has not been to start a war with the US. Gee, Bullwinkle, that
> trick *never* works.

The thing is, no trick ever works.  We won't leave until we're good and 
ready to go.  We seem to have this notion that we're "protecting our 
interests" (read:  guarding the oil) by doing that, so the logical 
conclusion is either to strike back or to destroy the oil fields.  Since 
the oil fields provide the basis for the economy in those countries, that 
ain't gonna happen.  But even then, that was tried by Iraq in the first 
gulf war (burning the oil fields in Kuwait).

They're not left with a lot of options.  If "suck it up and live with an 
occupying force" isn't acceptable, there ain't a lot else they can do 
other than retaliate in the only ways that we seem to understand.  Even 
if it gets them stomped into the ground.

> I'll grant you if you've run out of options and you think God is on your
> side, it might seem more reasonable.

Yep.  And that cuts both ways, obviously - Bush's initial blunder was 
calling this war a "crusade" (remember that?).  Because that word doesn't 
mean *anything* culturally or historically in the middle east.

They declared a holy war, and we responded with a term that inspires holy 
warriors.  Brilliant move on Bush's part.  And once that genie's out of 
the bottle, it is NEVER going back in.

>> "Imagine that you didn't believe in Christ" "But I do!"
>> "Yeah, but imagine if you didn't!"
>> "Why on earth would I do that?"
>> "To see a different point of view"
>> "But that point of view is WRONG"
>> "And you know that how?"
>> "Because it's not MY point of view"
>> etc.
> 
> Heh. BTDTGTTS.

It really is funny in a sad way, isn't it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> But taking troops into Iraq was seen as an invasion of holy lands.  So we 
> repeat the cycle - they want us out, we become more entrenched in the 
> region.  I don't see how that's supposed to break the cycle. 

I'm vigorously agreeing. :-) I'm just pointing out that committing more 
terrorism to get the US *out* is as silly as sending the US in to 
prevent terrorism by using the military.


> But even then, that was tried by Iraq in the first 
> gulf war (burning the oil fields in Kuwait).

Well, the fields they burned weren't their own. A bit different, that.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:03:03 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But taking troops into Iraq was seen as an invasion of holy lands.  So
>> we repeat the cycle - they want us out, we become more entrenched in
>> the region.  I don't see how that's supposed to break the cycle.
> 
> I'm vigorously agreeing. :-) I'm just pointing out that committing more
> terrorism to get the US *out* is as silly as sending the US in to
> prevent terrorism by using the military.

I don't disagree with that.  I think we're both agreeing here. :-)

>> But even then, that was tried by Iraq in the first gulf war (burning
>> the oil fields in Kuwait).
> 
> Well, the fields they burned weren't their own. A bit different, that.

From what I recall, the Iraqis (or maybe more accurately, Saddam) 
believed they were.

Jim

Post a reply to this message