Matthew and Me Actually Take Something Seriously

Matthew: I'm in a love affair with Chuck Hagel. He is my favorite candidate reguarless of party. You should watch the clips I have on TSE

me: I did.

Matthew: Even Bubba The Love Spounge said he has his vote right now
and I listen to everything Bubba tells me
It's really fucking sad I listen to that shit

me: It seems to me to be little more than grandstanding over a pretty meaningless resolution. I mean, really, what does the Senate saying, "We disagree." do to change anything?

Matthew: I posted the video more so for his admonition that no one should impune the motives of another as aiding the terrorists
to say that if we show disagreement we aid our enemies, but then say they hate our freedoms

me: I don't think anyone says that is the motive.

Matthew: fuck the resolution, you are right it is meaningless
but to say you can't change his course so why bother voicing an opinion is wrong
Believe me the Republican crowd did nothing but state that we where heading for Vietnam with Clinton's Kosovo incursion
no matter how meaningless it was

me: There is a legitimate concern that a lack of unified will emboldens an enemy that preys on symbolic victories.

Matthew: But Bush is fighting a war against a tactic

me: I don't think there was the same degree of unity on Kosovo among Republicans as there is among Democrats on Iraq.
You know that's not the case.
Bush is fighting a war on Islamic extremism and Islamic indifference.
But that doesn't sound nice on the international stage.

Matthew: if its not Al queda its Hezbollah, if not them then the Black hand of pre ww I
terroism will exist forever, it will never be defeated. Al Qeauda as we knew it is gone, it's replace by more who share an ax to grind because of their miserable conditions. But that was not the argument. To say you aid the enemy by decenting with strategy means there is no use for the bill of rights becaus they only aid and abet the enemy

me: Nonsense. Inasmuch as what I said holds it is a matter of discretion.

Matthew: I'm all for killing Osama bin Ladin but to say we need marshal law to do it is ludicrus

me: When was martial law brought up?

Matthew: Nonsense, ludicrus
I cant spell
I'm being histrionic

But go back to the original question, how can they hate our freedoms, but be strengthend by them at the same time
to defeat them we just need to shut up and let Bush do whatever he feels is right?

me: Huh? They are strengthened by an apparent lack of resolve. Freedom has nothing to do with it. If we were a dictatorship with a waffliing tyrant it would be no different.
Instead we are a Republic with a waffling populace and a Congress that takes its cues from that populace.

Matthew: so we are losing the war because of us. We just don't want it hard enough?

me: In a sense, yes.

Matthew: strategy has no bearing
we were told it would cost nothing and be over in a second, and we don't have the right to be a little upset when it turns out different?

me: Yes, but the strategy is limited by our own morals. We view World War II as a grand victory. Well, we had to do some vicious shit to scare the enemy. The south didn't bow until Sherman started cutting a swath to the sea.

War is hell. Bush is at fault as the leader to an extent, but it is our own weak-kneed, hemming and hawing culture that creates the problem. Either we want to police the world or we don't. We prefer to take half measures.

Matthew: I can't disagree much with that
I did not mean to get into it like that, but that was good

me: For the record, I don't want to police the world. I think it is bad for our national morality.