Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #5   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,515
Default 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.




  #6   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,115
Default 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
  #7   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,091
Default If you don't believe that Democrats...


"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.

Nope. Iraq is making more and more sense as being the focal point on the
war on terror. No surrounding nations liked Sadam; in fact they were
threatened by him. The people of Iraq were oppressed and treated to
terrorism from within. Rather than invade every country where members of
Al Qaeda reside, or the many terrorist organizations associated with Al
Qaeda (al Jihad, the National Islamic Front, Hezballah and others) all of
whom, BTW, share a common goal .... the defeat of western civilization and
freedom, particularly that represented by the United States, it makes more
sense to bring them to us. If that was the plan, it's working to a
degree.

Eisboch


  #8   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,515
Default If you don't believe that Democrats...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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.


  #9   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,091
Default 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


  #10   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,515
Default 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?




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democrats behaving like democrats. P.Fritz General 3 October 11th 04 01:16 PM
Go Democrats! Phil Morris ASA 0 August 24th 04 02:11 AM
Don't Know leads the Democrats Horvath ASA 0 December 19th 03 02:27 AM
Bad news for Democrats Simple Simon ASA 12 November 24th 03 02:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017