If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..

DAMN, RAGHEAD to describe our ally? Invade Pakinstan, another ally?

This group has more ultra right wing hawks than I thought.



Well, a diversity of opinions, anyway.
There's one thing for sure though, and it's true no matter what the
objective. You only truly lose when you give up.

Eisboch



I don't disagree, but I thought Raghead went the same way as the N word,
Kike, Wop, Mick etc.

Invading an ally, when you are trying to have expand your Muslim allies
is not a wise decision, and would meet definitely be considered
extremely Hawkish, and one that is normally associated with the Ultra
Right Wing Hawks.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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?

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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.

People easily forget. They forget things like +3000 killed on 9/11.
They forget that justified blood lust for Bin Laden ran high.
They forget that no world leader would deny the U.S. pursuit of Bin
Laden, where ever to chose to run.
They forget that when the CIA agent got killed in the "John Walker"
prison riot, he was eulogized to high heaven, but the last 1000 GI's
blown up by IED's in Iraq died forgotten by all but their loved ones.
They even forget that Tora Bora is in Afghanistan, not Pakistan.
Yet they have no problem in instinctively knowing that calling the
tribal wife-beating Afghan savages who let Bin Laden escape into
Pakistan - maybe purposely - ragheads is just so so naughty.
Go figure. Time moves on.

--Vic

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:56 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:14:53 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
have lost touch with America, read this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html

Unbelievable.
The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture,
secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements,
Gonzales,
no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands
seriously
wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without
health
insurance, incredible national debt.
And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam.

Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to
something
else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war on
terror".
That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that you
feel
have
prevented an attack on U.S. soil.


The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil
for
a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated
or
even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated
terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that
that
is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is
unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to
worry
specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American
citizens
all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists.

The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can
rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make
examples
of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You
can't
fight the war on terrorism with paper.


The notion of a "war on terror" is laughable. I have news for you.
You
can't possibly win it by use of force.



Probably the only way to win is via force. Extreme Force. If a family
sends one of their own as an attacker, kill the complete family. May
not be
PC, but the message will get through very quickly.


That will never accomplish anything other than to create more
terrorists. I
really don't think you understand the situation at all. Really.


He knows what he's been told to think. Isn't that good enough?


And you do not think. Worked for the Russians. And even if it does not
accomplish anything other than removing 20 people that believe in Jihad,
it does accomplish that. 1000 Jihadist == 20,000 fewer Jihadists.



Where do you think it worked for the Russians? Be very specific.

WHERE?


LEBANON. And they did not have to even kill anybody. They just informed
the extremists that they knew who they were and where their families lived.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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


~snerK~

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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?

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

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

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
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


The Russians have made that mistake in the past and they'll probably do it
again in the future. I know what you will say next.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
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


The Russians have made that mistake in the past and they'll probably do it
again in the future. I know what you will say next.



No, I know what you will say next.

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:06:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:H_SdnYl2BuEHwhLanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@giganews. com...

"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.


The US should never consider a threat to be so, because it may pan out.

Good strategy. That's what got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
--
John H

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:04:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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.


Your 'minor detours' always seem to occur when you've lost another one.
--
John H

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:58:56 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
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


The Russians have made that mistake in the past and they'll probably do it
again in the future. I know what you will say next.


You must be looking in the mirror saying, "Self, I am absolutely perfect."{

Were you right?
--
John H

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:06:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:H_SdnYl2BuEHwhLanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@giganews .com...

"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.


The US should never consider a threat to be so, because it may pan out.

Good strategy. That's what got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
--
John H


Who do you think we should invade next? Who has "threats" waiting for us?

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"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

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"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.


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.
We need to maintain friendships and cooperation with countries "on the
fence" including Pakistan and others, even if the "cooperation" is not
always adequate.

Eisboch

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

If you don't believe that Democrats...
 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:46:18 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:06:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:H_SdnYl2BuEHwhLanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@giganew s.com...

"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.


The US should never consider a threat to be so, because it may pan out.

Good strategy. That's what got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
--
John H


Who do you think we should invade next? Who has "threats" waiting for us?


Lots of threats. None worth going to war for, yet.
--
John H