the outcome of the election

[gekko]

That's because it's not an analogy; it's a metaphor.  :angry:

But, here's a "scientific" experiment I want you to run before you claim that you don't understand me. Go to your local zoo, and step into the tiger's cage. Make sure it's a male tiger, and give said tiger a swift kick in the rear end. Then you may proceed to talk the tiger out of ripping you to shreds.

In any case, I was referring to a British requirement for members of Parliment: Would you trust this candidate on a tiger hunt? Or, in other words: would the candidate try to shoot the tiger or talk to it?
[right][snapback]59360[/snapback][/right]

If we're going to discuss this in terms of a tiger hunt, let's at leat make it a realistic comparison.

If the terrorists are a tiger, the W is certainly not a skinny human stepping into a cage with said tiger. W is more like a tank. Or robocop. Or the terminator. Or an attack helicopter cruising through the zoo, shooting missiles and machine guns at the tiger. He's the leader of a militar super power; of the country that has the greatest collection of things that go *boom* and the most recent active will to use them.

That's why your metaphor is useless. You're portraying the US as the weak, helpless victim, when they are in fact obviously in a position of strength. Are the terrorists a threat? Of course they are. However, there has to be more to foreign relations than simply shooting everyone who you consider a threat.

gekko