"BAR" wrote in message
...
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.




You still haven't explained the specific measures you believe have prevented
further attacks here. I know you've got nothing, but at least you could
pretend to have a decent handful of facts.

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:13:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

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?



Our leaders need to stay focused. If they had, we wouldn't be
wondering about how to find him.

You are all talk and not action. You just want something to complain about.

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?


Not analogous.

Pearl Harbor is not analogous? Civilians died during that attack.

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:07:17 -0500, BAR wrote:



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

I was addressing the "martyr" aspect. Said all I intend to say
about Tora Bora.

--Vic

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:58:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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.


What's that supposed to mean? That we're honorable for not invading
Pakistan? Uh oh.


Honor was not mentioned in the discussion.

Why do you feel it necessary to change the subject? Do you find
name-calling and derogatory personal attacks 'honorable'?

Don't 'pansy out' on me now.
--
John H

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:13:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
m...

"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

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:58:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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.


What's that supposed to mean? That we're honorable for not invading
Pakistan? Uh oh.


Honor was not mentioned in the discussion.

Why do you feel it necessary to change the subject? Do you find
name-calling and derogatory personal attacks 'honorable'?

Don't 'pansy out' on me now.
--
John H

I'm not changing the subject. You have a problem with minor detours that
most competent adults find perfectly normal in conversations.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:13:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

"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.

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.


Eisboch has more sense than to continue with you. You made an
interpretation of his words, ridiculous as it was.
--
John H

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:04:58 -0500, "Jim" wrote:


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

He's already lost it. But if he had won, Harry would have had to write
another "everyone except you" post.


--
John H

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:26:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 17, 9:13*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Psssst! *Can I tell you a little secret? GWB already ignores the sovereignty
of other countries.

That's the understatement of the year! Not only does he ignore the
sovereignity of other countries, he thinks (as well as a lot of his
followers) that the United States is the World Police Force.

Would you rather the Russians or the Chinese be the police force? I'm sure
they'd be willing if we weren't standing in their way.
--
John H