"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?
I am not certain what Eisboch meant, but I would say you should
definitely respect the sovereignty of your allies, if you want to keep
them your allies. Pakistan's govt. is doing a real balancing act,
supporting the US, and trying to control the Muslim extremist in their
country. It really doesn't seem to be that hard to understand.



Quiet, Reggie. My question was directed as Eisboch. Don't presume to be
able to explain what he meant.

Joe,
Try to read my post again. I said i am not sure, but then told you what I
think.

I didn't ask for your input. The question was addressed to Eisboch.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?
I am not certain what Eisboch meant, but I would say you should
definitely respect the sovereignty of your allies, if you want to keep
them your allies. Pakistan's govt. is doing a real balancing act,
supporting the US, and trying to control the Muslim extremist in their
country. It really doesn't seem to be that hard to understand.


Quiet, Reggie. My question was directed as Eisboch. Don't presume to be
able to explain what he meant.
Joe,
Try to read my post again. I said i am not sure, but then told you what I
think.

I didn't ask for your input. The question was addressed to Eisboch.



I guess can only handle one conversation at a time. Carry on with your
foolishness.

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:42:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?
I am not certain what Eisboch meant, but I would say you should
definitely respect the sovereignty of your allies, if you want to keep
them your allies. Pakistan's govt. is doing a real balancing act,
supporting the US, and trying to control the Muslim extremist in their
country. It really doesn't seem to be that hard to understand.


Quiet, Reggie. My question was directed as Eisboch. Don't presume to be
able to explain what he meant.
Joe,
Try to read my post again. I said i am not sure, but then told you what I
think.
I didn't ask for your input. The question was addressed to Eisboch.


This is usenet. If you want to specifically address just one person,
you really should take it to email.



Nah, he is not worth it

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message . ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message . ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?
I am not certain what Eisboch meant, but I would say you should
definitely respect the sovereignty of your allies, if you want to
keep them your allies. Pakistan's govt. is doing a real balancing
act, supporting the US, and trying to control the Muslim extremist
in their country. It really doesn't seem to be that hard to
understand.


Quiet, Reggie. My question was directed as Eisboch. Don't presume to
be able to explain what he meant.
Joe,
Try to read my post again. I said i am not sure, but then told you
what I think.

I didn't ask for your input. The question was addressed to Eisboch.


I guess YOU can only handle one conversation at a time. Carry on with your
foolishness.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?
I am not certain what Eisboch meant, but I would say you should
definitely respect the sovereignty of your allies, if you want to keep
them your allies. Pakistan's govt. is doing a real balancing act,
supporting the US, and trying to control the Muslim extremist in their
country. It really doesn't seem to be that hard to understand.



Quiet, Reggie. My question was directed as Eisboch. Don't presume to be
able to explain what he meant.

Joe,
Try to read my post again. I said i am not sure, but then told you what I
think.

Do you think that If Kanter claims a win over Eisboch, he will get a high
five from Harry.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:42:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?
I am not certain what Eisboch meant, but I would say you should
definitely respect the sovereignty of your allies, if you want to keep
them your allies. Pakistan's govt. is doing a real balancing act,
supporting the US, and trying to control the Muslim extremist in their
country. It really doesn't seem to be that hard to understand.



Quiet, Reggie. My question was directed as Eisboch. Don't presume to be
able to explain what he meant.

Joe,
Try to read my post again. I said i am not sure, but then told you what
I
think.

I didn't ask for your input. The question was addressed to Eisboch.


This is usenet. If you want to specifically address just one person,
you really should take it to email.



Reggie is adding nothing but clutter. He knows that. It's his reason for
being here.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked
us.

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.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for
al-qiada.

Not under MY plan, he doesn't.
Enlighten us please.

Publish a picture of his detached head, toss all his parts in the
middle of an undisclosed ocean, and never say another word about him.
Of course the TV forensic pathologists will cry about not being able
to perform an autopsy, like they did with Bhutto, to find out how she
*really* died.

You are describing what you want to do after he is caught. What would
you do or would you have done to capture OBL?

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message . ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?
I am not certain what Eisboch meant, but I would say you should
definitely respect the sovereignty of your allies, if you want to keep
them your allies. Pakistan's govt. is doing a real balancing act,
supporting the US, and trying to control the Muslim extremist in their
country. It really doesn't seem to be that hard to understand.


Quiet, Reggie. My question was directed as Eisboch. Don't presume to be
able to explain what he meant.
Joe,
Try to read my post again. I said i am not sure, but then told you what
I think.

I didn't ask for your input. The question was addressed to Eisboch.

I guess can only handle one conversation at a time. Carry on with your
foolishness.


I can handle about a dozen at a time, but your input has no value. None.

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:42:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?
I am not certain what Eisboch meant, but I would say you should
definitely respect the sovereignty of your allies, if you want to keep
them your allies. Pakistan's govt. is doing a real balancing act,
supporting the US, and trying to control the Muslim extremist in their
country. It really doesn't seem to be that hard to understand.


Quiet, Reggie. My question was directed as Eisboch. Don't presume to be
able to explain what he meant.
Joe,
Try to read my post again. I said i am not sure, but then told you what I
think.
I didn't ask for your input. The question was addressed to Eisboch.


This is usenet. If you want to specifically address just one person,
you really should take it to email.

Dougie Kanter needs the audience, it is what gets him up in the morning.

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked
us.

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.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for
al-qiada.

Not under MY plan, he doesn't.
Enlighten us please.

Find and kill the *******. Then put his remains in the poured concrete
foundation of the new World Trade Center.

We already know you want to find him and kill him. What we want to know
is how you would go about the task of finding OBL?


And stop all the annual public memorials concerning 9/11. Every time
we openly obsess about it, the terrorists score another victory
without lifting a finger. If you want to mourn, do it in private, not
as a national exhibition.

Should we stop the annual wreath laying at the USS Arizona monument in
Pearl Harbor? Should we get rid of the tomb's of the unknown soldiers at
Arlington National Cemetery?