JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

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.


Excuse me. I paid for this computer. I'll say any silly thing I want.

Eisboch


Really, I need to understand this better. So far, I've interpreted your
words to mean the following:

"We should respect the sovereignty of other nations, except when we don't
feel like it."

Is that it?

Nope.

Eisboch


Well, that's what your theory sounds like. In your other post, you said
"Reggie's correct. If we were going to go after Al Qaeda and all their
associated terrorists groups we would have to invade or be invited into
countries all over the world, including those of our allies. Just not going
to happen."

If you are going to tell us what we are thinking why the heck bother to
ask any questions?

You will misinterpret any statements made by anyone, so it fits your
preconceived assumptions.

In other words, we can CLAIM we're going after AQ, and give ourselves a
green light to invade any country we want. Of course, we'd need to add a few
more weak reasons in case the original one fizzled out. That's how it worked
with Iraq, remember? The list of vanishing reasons?