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

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



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.


Then we become, in essence, the same sort of terrorist that we're
fighting against.

Dave


Exactly. Take your pick. We can throw our weight around like we've been
doing since the beginning of our imperialist days (Cuba, Phillippines,
1898-ish), or we can be quiet about our adventures. If art is any
indication
of popular opinion, I think people prefer the James Bond approach.

I would tend to disagree. The covert approach implies a certain "cloak
and dagger" mystique about it, and would tend to also imply a "sneaky"
and underhanded methodology.

An overt military operation makes no bones about who we are after and
why.

Dave


But Dave, you've implied that the cloak & dagger routine is a lousy option
because we have to illegally enter a sovereign nation. How did we LEGALLY
enter a sovereign nation when he entered into Iraq? I assume you realize
that the only difference was the name of the operation, not the principle at
work.