"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

"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.

"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

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

"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

"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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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


Well, that's what your theory sounds like. In your other post, you said
"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."

In other words, we can CLAIM we're going after AQ, and give ourselves a
green light to invade any country we want. Of course, we'd need to add a few
more weak reasons in case the original one fizzled out. That's how it worked
with Iraq, remember? The list of vanishing reasons?