|
posted to rec.boats
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,515
|
|
If you don't believe that Democrats...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:06:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:13:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:H_SdnYl2BuEHwhLanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@giganews .com...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based
uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental
Islam.
Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself
is
not that important.
If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't
disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more
than
a
symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the
fact
that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound
about
us, doesn't it?
Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan.
I agree. The politics and logistics of the "hunt" is very complex.
There's always the danger of causing more chaos in the world than that
already existing. If GWB acted like the "cowboy" that his critics
claim
he is, he would have ignored Pakistan's soveriency claims and sent the
troops in to capture or kill bin Laden. It may have accomplished a
short
term goal but would have set off another major crisis.
Psssst! Can I tell you a little secret? GWB already ignores the
sovereignty
of other countries. Please don't say silly things about how we should
respect the sovereignty of other countries. If you insist on saying
silly
things like that, then you need to explain how the invasion of Iraq fits
your definition of respecting sovereignty.
Iraq was a threat. Pakistan is an ally. Hard to believe you can't see a
difference.
--
John H
The "threats" on GWB's original list were shown to be nonsense. That's why
new reasons were invented. Saddam was hiding what he didn't have. It
worked,
and it made sense, although you won't understand why.
The US should never consider a threat to be so, because it may pan out.
Good strategy. That's what got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
--
John H
Who do you think we should invade next? Who has "threats" waiting for us?
|