"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Which brings us back to the original statement, how would you "hunt"
down a criminal such as OBL or SH, when we have no legal right to
enter
the country which harbors him? If the host country refuses to help
us,
do we just turn around, or do we comitt an act of war by defying the
wishes of the host country? That was the whole premise for the
campaign
against Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, that aiding the terrorists was
akin to being an accessory to the "crime", and are therefore equally
culpable.


I just figured it out, Dave. I can't believe it took so long. You are
actually a skel who lives on the streets, and stumbles into an internet
cafe
with panhandled coins to use their computer a couple of times a day. How
else could we explain what you just said, other than to blame
intravenous
narcotics use and a diet of Thunderbird?

"no legal right to enter the country which harbors him" ?????

So: If we sent spies to hunt down and kill OBL, that would be wrong
because
we might not have the legal right to enter countries without their
permission. But, if we send enough people in military uniforms, it's a
different story? A patriotic endeavor?


Sigh. It figures that you just don't get it. Try reading it again a
little slower this time.

The point, if you still don't get it, is that if we want to play the
good guy, and respect the sovereignty of all nations, then we have no
right to cross the borders of any country which hides terrorist camps,
without their cooperation. Last time I looked, most are not
cooperating. So what's the difference if we send in covert assasins or a
full blown military garrison?

Dave

The word "covert" answers your last question. By sending troops into a
sovereign nation, we did exactly what terrorists have been pointing at, as
an excuse for their actions. By using covert assassins, it's a bit harder to
pin the blame on us, at least in the eyes of the world.