Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
I give up, John. You are right. Saudi Arabia is a fabulous ally, on par with
Great Britain and the "Special Relationship" which many historians use in
conjunction with that country.

I surrender. I love Saudi Arabia. They've done nothing wrong. Wahhabism in
all its forms is good for America.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...54/ai_84107366



In a mind (and I use that term loosely) like Herring's, the Saudis are
at heart Republican capitalists, and the facts that Saudis fund most of
the terrorism in the world, that most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis,
that there are many government supported schools in Saudi Arabia that
teach hatred of America, and that the Saudis are soaking us dry - well,
hell, that's not important. What is important is that Bush is a good
friend of the Saudis.

Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:40:48 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I give up, John. You are right. Saudi Arabia is a fabulous ally, on par
with
Great Britain and the "Special Relationship" which many historians use in
conjunction with that country.

I surrender. I love Saudi Arabia. They've done nothing wrong. Wahhabism in
all its forms is good for America.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...54/ai_84107366


You did the right thing by giving up.

Attempting to put words in my mouth is not 'winning an argument'....but is
very dishonest.

Have you ever noticed that you seem to have a very hard time staying on
track? You may not consider yourself a liberal, but that ploy is used by
most of them. Go check some of Harry's 'arguments'. You'll notice a strong
similarity.


Does my typing have an accent? I agree with you. The Saudis are a great
ally, and historians should use "Special Relationship" to describe them as
well as Great Britain.

The Saudis are furthering our goals by helping to put lots of diplomats'
kids through college. Bless the Saudis.
http://www.cq.com/public/20060203_homeland.html

Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:40:48 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I give up, John. You are right. Saudi Arabia is a fabulous ally, on par with
Great Britain and the "Special Relationship" which many historians use in
conjunction with that country.

I surrender. I love Saudi Arabia. They've done nothing wrong. Wahhabism in
all its forms is good for America.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...54/ai_84107366


You did the right thing by giving up.

Attempting to put words in my mouth is not 'winning an argument'....but is
very dishonest.

Have you ever noticed that you seem to have a very hard time staying on
track? You may not consider yourself a liberal, but that ploy is used by
most of them. Go check some of Harry's 'arguments'. You'll notice a strong
similarity.

Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"

Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack.

Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?

Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@4ax. com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN
WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths
of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain
why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept.
11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the
Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the
US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to
include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats
and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are
all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?


Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery
incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of
information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly
to schools which train lunatics.


Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Because I told you 82 was the number.

Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@4ax .com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN
WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths
of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain
why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept.
11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the
Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the
US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to
include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats
and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are
all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?


Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery
incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of
information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly
to schools which train lunatics.


Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Because I told you 82 was the number.


We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple
times of teaching anti-US sentiment.

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your
Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around.

http://tinyurl.com/a3arge

Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it.

Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@4ax. com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@4a x.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in
your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN
WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the
deaths
of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain
why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite
increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept.
11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the
Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the
US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here
we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way,
Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments
here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to
include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly
orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats
and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are
all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?"
Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to
warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?


Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery
incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of
information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds
directly
to schools which train lunatics.


Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Because I told you 82 was the number.


We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple
times of teaching anti-US sentiment.

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your
Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around.

http://tinyurl.com/a3arge

You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as
Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon.

If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi
bribes.


Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it.


You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would disagree
with it. You know that.

Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
 

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@4ax .com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@4 ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in
your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN
WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the
deaths
of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain
why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite
increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept.
11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the
Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the
US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here
we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way,
Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments
here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to
include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly
orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats
and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are
all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?"
Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to
warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?


Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery
incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of
information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds
directly
to schools which train lunatics.


Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Because I told you 82 was the number.


We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple
times of teaching anti-US sentiment.

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your
Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around.

http://tinyurl.com/a3arge

You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as
Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon.

If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi
bribes.


Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it.


You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would disagree
with it. You know that.


Good, so we're done.