On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 06:08:33PM -0700, Tom wrote: > On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 04:59:08PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote: > [snip] > > I was aware of all your facts and reasonings before you spoke. > We just part ways on our interpretation of the facts. > > I'll repeat: anyplace people want to kill us, we want to kill them. Then does that give people in Afghanistan and Iraq the right to attack America? As it does seem that (some) Americans want to kill them. > I defy anyone to say Iraq was not a place (some) people wanted to kill > us. Yes, there are other places that are our allies where *more* people > want to kill us. Yes, it pisses me off that we haven't caught the two > head guys yet. Yes, Bin Laden is more important than Sadam. The fact that "some" people want to kill you is not reason enough to indiscriminately wage war on a country. In fact it is a bad idea from a tactical point of view, as attacking someone will INCREASE their will to kill you. > You need to accept the premise that capriciousness and cruelty is part > of the strategy *without* believing that the end goal is world > domination, and *then* you'll understand why we're doing what were > doing. Any strategy that uses cruelty and capriciousness is clearly not going to make anyone love the cruel and capricious party (U.S. and allies). Therefore that clearly must not be the reason that these tactics are used. The Bush administration is not *that* stupid. (Bin Laden doesn't use cruelty to make people not want to kill him. He uses it because he wants to start a holy war.) Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com> http://www.crasseux.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature