On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snrkqmdbbo@4ax .com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14farj4ggdhf9@4 ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in
message
news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtgtr7duhm7eo2 @4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following
well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn0ug14i91eie ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST),

wrote:

On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)

http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/

Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed
in
no
time.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already
concluded
that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in
office
yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would
be
a
miserable failure, and STILL don't see it.

Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president?

Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq
and
Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney
Frank
crowd,
he would have had a great economy going for him.
John H


Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for
attacking
us.


What country would you have had him 'punish'?

15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That
country,
to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their
government owned radio. That same government, having close ties
to
the
Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely
unchallenged
by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000
Americans.
Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's.

In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al
Qaeda
operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been
charged
(or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that
country's
borders.

Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this
country
go free.....


Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information.
That
will
be
funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over
OUR
SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called
"allies",
who
provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our
soldiers.

"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers
discovered
in
September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert
near
Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an
insurgent
cell
believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of
foreign
fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a
collection
of
biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for
more
than
700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006."


I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from
whence
have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted
felons.
--
** Good Day! **

John H


Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for
Pearl
Harbor.


Enuff. Bye.


It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic",
if
you can call it logic.


Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've still not
answered it.


It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really attacked us.
You
really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who attacked
us.

Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football is
rotting
your brain, old soldier.


Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a question,
willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?

Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him 'punish'?"

My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can name the
country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer because
you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country from
which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do not
share.

So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come from? "New
Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers.


Your statement: Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for
attacking us.

My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'?


OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia. Now I'm
curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi Arabia,
because more than any other country you can name, they were responsible
9/11.

Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters than any
other into Iraq.

Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to Iraq.


Thank you. But, first things first.

You seem to think that the government and people of a country are
responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or former
citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether or not
those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country.

If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of a few
of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied to any
country from whence citizens have acted against the people or properties of
this country.

There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers, and
pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico.

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