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.